Windows Server 2003 -- better performance with dual core?

[prochobo]

I'm thinking about migrating to server 2003 because I heard somewhere that it has better support for SMP than XP does. I remember seeing some benchmarks somewhere, but I can find em anymore. Anyone know if it is worth it? I already have a real copy BTW.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: prochobo
I'm thinking about migrating to server 2003 because I heard somewhere that it has better support for SMP than XP does. I remember seeing some benchmarks somewhere, but I can find em anymore. Anyone know if it is worth it? I already have a real copy BTW.

Depends on what apps you want to run on the box. For general desktop use, no, stick with XP.

 

[spyordie007]

Most Server 2003 versions support more than 2 physical processors, other than that performance is going to be comperable.

Just like Bill said it's highly dependant on your app.

 

[ProviaFan]

I have noticed better performance on XP x64 (based on the 2003 server codebase) than on normal XP, but I'm not sure if any of that could be attributed to the fact that I can't use my XP antivirus software (Mcafee) on x64. Most things feel just slightly more snappy, and in a particularly unusual case, Adobe Bridge seems to load almost twice as fast!

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I have noticed better performance on XP x64 (based on the 2003 server codebase) than on normal XP, but I'm not sure if any of that could be attributed to the fact that I can't use my XP antivirus software (Mcafee) on x64. Most things feel just slightly more snappy, and in a particularly unusual case, Adobe Bridge seems to load almost twice as fast!

Same here and I don't use antivirus on either OS.

 

[spyordie007]

Comparing performance under XP 64 versus XP x86 would not be an "apples-to-apples" comparison; of course there's going to be a differance 😉

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Comparing performance under XP 64 versus XP x86 would not be an "apples-to-apples" comparison; of course there's going to be a differance 😉

Well, I'm glad to hear from someone with more knowledge that I'm not just seeing things. Most people that I've heard say that XP64 won't show any performance improvement with non-64 bit apps, and I've been told that I'm just imagining things in regard to the better "feel" of the OS in day-to-day use.

 

[spyordie007]

I thought they were refering to the "general snappyness" of the OS (64bit code on the 64bit platform); I'm wasnt refering to running 32bit applications.

As I understand it a 32bit application run under XP x64 versus the same 32bit application running under XP x86 on identical hardware should not show a signifigant differance in performance.

 

[ProviaFan]

Firefox clearly bogs down less when quickly opening multiple tabs here on the forums with XP x64 than with normal XP. Obviously, most apps don't show a noticeable difference at all, but the few that do - and do so as drastically as they do - are what confuse me.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Firefox clearly bogs down less when quickly opening multiple tabs here on the forums with XP x64 than with normal XP. Obviously, most apps don't show a noticeable difference at all, but the few that do - and do so as drastically as they do - are what confuse me.

It's guessing it's because of the virtual memory manager, which needed to be recoded to address that much memory. At the same time, some improvements spilled over into the 32-bit area as well?

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: prochobo
I'm thinking about migrating to server 2003 because I heard somewhere that it has better support for SMP than XP does. I remember seeing some benchmarks somewhere, but I can find em anymore. Anyone know if it is worth it? I already have a real copy BTW.

W2K3 does NOT have "better" support for SMP.

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 use the same thread scheduler; they just tweak things slightly differently.

It's entirely possible that you'd notice a slowdown of your apps and not a speedup. XP gives a boost to the foreground application to speed up interactive applications. W2K3 doesn't do that, so that services run faster.