do you need XP Pro for a dual core CPU? 17 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

I'm designing a new computer for my friends family, and the budget is pretty tight (considering how long they expect the computer to last), and my latest revision has a Pentium D 820 Processor (dual core 2.8GHz). I've read around the tech discussion forums (in the plethera of XP home vs pro threads) that one of the benefits of XP pro is that it can take advantage of multiple processors. So if I build them a computer with a dual core CPU, must I get XP Pro to take advantage of the second core? They are fairly computer illiterate and only want to use the computer to view and store digital photos, with the occasional internet surfing, and they don't really need XP Pro. So do I have to go Pro, or will XP Home take advantage of both cores too?




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Uniprocessor means one. Dual processor means two Multiprocessor means more than two. Just so you know. Home is good for two CPUs AFAIK, but not more. As such, it should be ok for a Pentium D.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

If thats all they need it for why not just get a something like a 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 or a low end AMD64? just using it to view and store photos and web surfing will never even touch the second core.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

http://www.jamesboydassociates.com/windowsXP.htm XP home can not use 2 processors when XP pro can.




carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
RemanWarbirdIf thats all they need it for why not just get a something like a 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 or a low end AMD64? just using it to view and store photos and web surfing will never even touch the second core.

The computer that it is replacing is a 266MHz AMD K6 with 60MB of PC100 RAM and a 4GB hard drive. I believe they paid around $2000 for it 6 or so years ago.... in other words, they expect this one to last them awhile. But would I still be better of going with a much higher clocked single core CPU and just rely on the HT for multi-tasking? @C38368. They say XP Pro is good for multiple processors, but multiple doesnt really mean more than two... rather, two or more. So will XP Pro handle two cores any better than home, or will it handle exactly the same? Also, if that article that Agentlaidlaw posted is correct, XP home can't take advantage of even two processors.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
carl4286The computer that it is replacing is a 266MHz AMD K6 with 60MB of PC100 RAM and a 4GB hard drive. I believe they paid around $2000 for it 6 or so years ago.... in other words, they expect this one to last them awhile. But would I still be better of going with a much higher clocked single core CPU and just rely on the HT for multi-tasking?

Ahh yes the good old K6, my freind has a old K6 200Mhz system that i used so i have a good idea on how fast theres is (slow as hell). Well, from what you said there going to be using it for, i can't see them really doing alot of multitasking, or at least not enough to really make use of a dual core. I would personally go with a higher clocked Pentium 4 or AMD64. since that dual core will only run like a 2.8Ghz in the things they will be using it for, you would be much better off getting something like a 3.2Ghz or better Pentium 4 IMO, which the 3.2 would probably cost around or less than that dual core and would give better performance in doing everyday things like veiwing photos and surfing the web.




carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Well, for $20 less I can get a Pentium 4 630 (has EM64T, which in the case of my friends family is almost as useless as dual core... even though the dual core also has EM64T)... but it only saves me $20 and only gets me from 2.8GHz to 3.0GHz, and I sacrafice an entire core. Should I save them $20 for the single core 3.0GHz, or spend the full $245.99 for the dual core 2.8GHz? But I don't mean to distract from the original question. Weather or not XP Home will take advantage of two cores as well as XP Pro is still my most pressing concern.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

XP Pro is only like what $30 more than home anyways and pro will have longer windows support time than home. Also the AMD dual core out beat intels big time. But yes AMD dual cores are A LOT more money but there hella faster than Intels and would last longer in speed wise than Intels.




carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

XP Pro is $60 more. When your trying to stay below $700, saving $60 goes a long way.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

This is the processer i would recommend for there setup: Pentium 4 540J 3.2Ghz LGA775. Its not EMT64, but if you don't think they will ever need that this would more than likely do them better for what they need than a dual core would, and is alot cheaper. I would think that XP Home should do fine with a Pentium D seeing as you can get a Dell 9100 with a Pentium D and XP Home.




  • 1
  • 2