Optimize XP for Dual Core

[sputnik18]

ok. Knew about this before, but after doing this Ad-Aware/Ad-Watch crashed at startup as the new kernel32.dll changed. Performance did seem to increase.

BUT Consider this:

"Note: This solution favors performance gains over power savings. Although benchmark performance scores may improve, battery life could be negatively affected. Accordingly, this kernel policy change may be disabled by a registry key to allow for maximum flexibility." (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=896256)

Thanks! :cool:

Edited March 28, 2007 by sputnik18

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

  Schnitzel said:

Hmm. So if I plug a fresh installed XP SP2 PC into the net, download all available updates on WU, then I won't need to apply this fix?

That's absolutely true, you know, those hidden updates MS doesn't release on Windows Update is not there for a reason, perhaps they didn't go through all quality tests since they fix a specific problem for specific segment at a time, or simply MS will incorporate them in a next update or a service pack so they don't bother releasing the current one, and that's exactly the case with this Dual Core/HT patch since it's now included already in a newer update with a newer kernel version.

  Schnitzel said:

I'm somewhat confused as to whether I need to or not. I have a Core 2 Duo.

Been reading loads of stuff on the net about it, but the fact is, I can't determine whether or not I need to do some or all of the following:

1. Install KB896256 patch

2. Set "PerfEnablePackageIdle" to 1 in registry

3. Add /usepmtimer to Boot.ini

Do #2 and #3 only, as long as you have installed every WU patch.

And after all, an update will never replace a newer file, so If you try to run the KB896256 update while you don't need it, no damage will happen :)

Speaking about it, this site for example has all KB's fixes MS released for Windows Vista, and most of them are available through direct MS contact only and not via Windows Update:

http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php...amp;sort_mode=a

[MrBear5587]

Thanks mate (Y) :)

Have everything from WU installed except .NET 1.1, heh so I'll go do #2 and #3 ^^

[misdirectionx]

Okay, I just got my AMD 64 4200+ X2 as of today. I am upgrading from AMD 3500+ and to be honest with you, I don't see any real performance gain between 3500+ and 4200+ X2.

I already installed the Drive for X2, M$ hotfix (although I didn't heed the warning not to mix with AMD driver for X2 and M$ hotfix, since it will cause BSOD. However, I haven't encounter any BSOD recently). I also tweaked the registry to gain some performance booast, hardly noticeable I'll say.

I am quite disappointed that I shelled out $180.00 for this CPU. Any advice would be welcomed, and I need to figure out how get rid of those application on the taskbar every time window boots. It loads so slow...

Thanks.

AMD64 4200+ X2

Biostar 6100T

500W Antec PSU

Geforce 7600 GS 512 MB PCI-E x16

3 GB DDR333

500 GB WD

35.7 GB Raptor WD

[rajputwarrior]

only performance gain you are going to see is when you play games or something that is taxing on the system. If you are just on msn or going on the net in stuff, you won't notice much of a difference

[Somnus]

I don't think any of this pertains to Windows XP Professional x64 correct?

If I am not mistaken it is already optimized for multi-core systems?

[CaKeY]

  rajputwarrior said:

only performance gain you are going to see is when you play games or something that is taxing on the system. If you are just on msn or going on the net in stuff, you won't notice much of a difference

Can say the same thing when comparing a 700mhz amd-k7 to a core 2 lol.

[Emile]

  rajputwarrior said:

In there there should be a DWORD called PerfEnablePackageIdle make sure the value = 1. If not, make it say 1. If the key is not there, create it. Right click an area in that box, and go new DWORD. This will increase performance A LOT.

Is that decimal or hexadecimal?

[jimboh1]

  Emile said:

Is that decimal or hexadecimal?

And can any of this be useful if running Vista? Or is it already optimized for dual core?

[Martog]

  misdirectionx said:

Okay, I just got my AMD 64 4200+ X2 as of today. I am upgrading from AMD 3500+ and to be honest with you, I don't see any real performance gain between 3500+ and 4200+ X2.

I noticed a nice improvement when I went from a 3500+ to the 4200+ dual core, but there is one slight thing. If you just plopped the CPU in and did not bother to reinstall Windows or update the device system to a multiprocessor PC, you will not see any benefits as Windows will still think you are on a single core system. I think forcing the system into system prep will redetect all the hardware, I've honestly never had to do this.

[rajputwarrior]

should be hexadecimal

[riahc3]

  jimboh1 said:

And can any of this be useful if running Vista? Or is it already optimized for dual core?

Think before you post. Vista was made for the future so dual-cores were already thought out.

[SunnyB]

  Emile said:

Is that decimal or hexadecimal?

From 0 thru 9 they are the same.

[rajputwarrior]

  rIaHc3 said:

Think before you post. Vista was made for the future so dual-cores were already thought out.

or you can be a jerk, he asked a simple question, get off your high horse there buddy

[Rahulrulez]

For XP no links are working

[RichardK]

  Rahulrulez said:

For XP no links are working

Try here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

This is a newer version than the one linked to in the OP.

[cfule]

i have done this on my XP ocmputer but i have lots of PCs still running windows 2000 on dual core (cant switch to XP because of specific software compatibility) Is there a way to optimize dual core for windows 2000? i do see the cpu0 and cpu1 on task manager, but im just not sure if it is optimizing both cores. thanks for any tip. been googling about it for hours now but cant seem to find any optimization for windows 2000. thanks in advance

[Freedom Phantom]

Thanks for the tips :)

Im running an Intel Core 2 6320 and ive seen a good increase in performance.

[Marshalus Veteran]

  cfule said:

i have done this on my XP ocmputer but i have lots of PCs still running windows 2000 on dual core (cant switch to XP because of specific software compatibility) Is there a way to optimize dual core for windows 2000? i do see the cpu0 and cpu1 on task manager, but im just not sure if it is optimizing both cores. thanks for any tip. been googling about it for hours now but cant seem to find any optimization for windows 2000. thanks in advance

I think you may be SOL on that one.

[Premgenius]

Does Vista needs a patch?

[rajputwarrior]

nope, vista is optimized pretty well already for dual core

[stezo2k]

Just want to say thanks for the guide, helped quite a bit :)

Got me a nice performance increase

[raskren]

I'm extremely skeptical of this guide.

First, nobody has explained how or why XP is not "optimized" for SMP, how and why Vista is optimized, and the difference between the two. Second, there is absolutely no empirical evidence to back up any of these claims. No benchmarks, no hard numbers or facts. Just things like "Things seem to load faster..." which isn't even indicative of CPU performance.

WTF? Am I the only one that feels this way?

[toadeater]

  raskren said:

I'm extremely skeptical of this guide.

First, nobody has explained how or why XP is not "optimized" for SMP, how and why Vista is optimized, and the difference between the two. Second, there is absolutely no empirical evidence to back up any of these claims. No benchmarks, no hard numbers or facts. Just things like "Things seem to load faster..." which isn't even indicative of CPU performance.

WTF? Am I the only one that feels this way?

This "dual core" fix is not for improving dual core performance, but for preventing crashes caused by dual core CPUs (mostly from AMD) when they change power-saving states. AKA change their CPU operating frequencies to save power. It does nothing to improve performance, XP already schedules tasks across cores without the fix.

You DO need the fix if you are getting crashes in XP because of your dual core CPU.

As for the difference between Vista and XP, Vista is running so many craplets in the background it needs enhanced dual core support just to run as fast as XP. :| Compare Vista performance on single and multi core CPUs if you think this is a joke.

Here's a good article about what this XP dual core issue is really about:

http://discussions.virtualdr.com/showthread.php?t=195533

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Using the AMD driver, then optimiser, and then lastly that reg fix I do seem to be seeing some real increases in speed.

Getting into Windows and then application access is more or less instant where as previously it was taking a few seconds before I could start launching apps, etc.

I also think it has cured a bit of an ongoing performance issue with Test Drive Unlimited so thats a bonus :)