Waste of Resources?

[mikep56]

Hi All,
I am a long time reader of this forum and respect the opinions of its members. I have a question and would appreciate any answers, comments, etc.
My main PC is an AMD Athlon X2 (cannot remember the number here; perhaps 3000 something) running 32 bit XP Pro with SP3 and 4GB RAM. I use this machine for video ripping and editting, iPhone and iPod stuff, and email and internet. I am NOT a gamer.
I also refuse to install another OS on this machine. I keep it clean (relatively) and so it runs very well.
My questions are this:

1) If I build a new machine with a multi-core processor and still put 32 bit XP on it, will it take advantage of the additional cores, or will they just sit idle?
2) Is this just wasting resources such as silicon and money?
3) Am I being pigheaded?

Any comments/suggestions are welcome.
Thanks.
Mike

[Ghitulescu]

XP can natively address multi-core but I think a special version is needed to address multi-processor (multi-cores are inside a single CPU identified as a socket, multi-processor are separate CPU, each in its own socket). My XP allows me to use a maximum of 2 CPUs.

I remember the times when it took 20 seconds to load an internet web-page on my 486 via a 33kbps modem (say my yahoo account). The same is today, with a quad-core and DSL16000. More CPU power is used actually to drive the Windows alone, to run various useless (and sometimes dangerous) applets and flash-applications that flood the internet sites, rather than to perform the original task of the computer, to compute things.

If a system does its job I see no reason to improve - unless one has some cash to waste rather than being taxed :). Sometimes an innocent upgrade launches an avalanche of needed upgrades, and for commercial reasons, sometimes the hardware is no longer supported in the new versions (the mfgs needs to sell the new ones) which causes additional money wastage. And it will add new bugs.

If you're happy with your system, stay with it. You have learned its shortcomings and bugs and by now you probably have found a way to circumvent them.

[mikep56]

Hi Ghitulescu,
Thanks for your quick response.
I am aware of the difference between multicore and multiprocessor. I do lots of transcoding, and it takes anywhere from 1-3 hours depending on the length of the movie. If moving to a new MB with a multicore processor would speed things up, it may be worth the outlay of a few hundred dollars to save hours each time I transcode.
I also remember when it took minutes to download a single jpg file from AOL at the blazing speed of 56Kb!
My present system is nothing exotic, just stock parts running normal, not overclocked. It is about 6 years old, so I do know it inside and out; besides I built it so I should know it inside and out.
Other than missing out on the speed increase for the video work, I am quite happy with it.

[Ghitulescu]

Then the answer can only the publisher of the transcoding software (engine) know. The best results are achieved with native multi-core applications - if one relies on the rudimentary default system multi-core implementation he indeed wastes money.

[nhakobian]

A couple of other things to note:

If you decide to buy a new system, there is nothing stopping you from putting 32-bit WinXP on it. However, if your software has a 64-bit version you might get a nice (but little) performance boost out of it (but then that requires a 64-bit os).

However, if you do upgrade, there are a lot of components that no longer have WinXP drivers for them. That might force you to upgrade your OS.

Depending on your workflow and if you do any HD compression or post-processing, you might need more than 4GB of ram. 32-bit WinXP w/o PAE enabled is limited to 3GB addressable RAM. Since you say you already have 4GB, I'm assuming you have a PAE enabled WinXP build.

The final decision is what you feel you need. If your current system does what you want it to do, then there is no reason to upgrade. Would a new computer encode video faster? Probably much faster (depending on if the software you are using is relatively up to date).

Eventually it might not be possible to do your email/web browsing on the system due to browsers not being supported for your os. But I have a feeling thats still a ways off.

[mikep56]

Hi nhakobian,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am really only interested in speeding up video editing and transcoding.
Mike

[Blue_MiSfit]

XP is fine with multi-core. Pro even supports 2 sockets. I manage a bunch of older encoders that run 8 cores on XP Pro with no problems.

Since you're stuck on 32 bit, RAM will become a bottleneck at some point, but you should be able to do a single 1080p encode without being memory limited, maybe even 2 in parallel. Beyond that, you'll need a 64 bit OS and more RAM.

I see you "refuse to upgrade your OS". You'll have to eventually, but I'm not here to force you. Eventually you won't be able to get drivers for XP.

One sneaky thing you could do - provided you can track down a license - is run Windows Server 2003 R2 x64. This will (for all intents and purposes) be exactly the same as XP, but just with solid 64 bit support. Heck, if I recall correctly you're already running the Server 2003 kernel with XP SP3. I have a bunch of legacy (~5 year old) dual quad core servers that still run this OS for clustered transcoding duty, and it's just fine. They tear through power like it's going out of style and are slated to be refreshed to shiny new blades running Server 2012 soon, but for now... ;)

[Groucho2004]

Heck, if I recall correctly you're already running the Server 2003 kernel with XP SP3.
Nope, XP32Sp3 sits on 5.1. XP64SP2 however runs on the same kernel as WS2003 -> 5.2.
And yes, WS2003 (with or without R2) is a very good OS. :)

[burfadel]

If you get a new computer, then definitely go either Win 7 x64 or Win 8.1 x64 (8.1 is coming out shortly). You won't be able to run XP on future machines simply because hardware support isn't there. There is so much hardware that XP doesn't support, but even if you ignore all that, the simple fact is you won't be able to make use of AVX, (FMA4, XOP on AMD), or AVX2 (Haswell) because the OS needs support for these due to the registers etc. In other words, on a new computer even if you manage to find all the required drivers etc, and only run with 3GB of RAM you are limited. The amount of RAM 32-bit can handle is 4GB - Video card RAM - a little extra. So, if you have a 1GB video card, which is by todays standard quite basic, you are only limited to around 2.8GB system RAM.

So, in other words:
- no point installing a different OS on your current rig, especially if you have to pay for it
- if you upgrade or get a new rig, you definitely and absolutely should move to nothing less than Win 7 x64. Windows 8.1 is coming out shortly, it's basically a service pack for Windows 8 under the guise of a new OS. Once Windows 8 is set up and modified it isn't too bad, but plain windows 8 is pretty crap.

[Ghitulescu]

So, in other words:
- no point installing a different OS on your current rig, especially if you have to pay for it
- if you upgrade or get a new rig, you definitely and absolutely should move to nothing less than Win 7 x64. Windows 8.1 is coming out shortly, it's basically a service pack for Windows 8 under the guise of a new OS. Once Windows 8 is set up and modified it isn't too bad, but plain windows 8 is pretty crap.
:goodpost:

[mikep56]

Hi All,
I want to thank you all for your input; you have been quite helpful with your opinions and knowledge.
Regards,
Mike