|
|
You're in the
dotnet performance
group:performance of dual core processors for .NET
dotnet performance:
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I thought may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here is my question. I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET application development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. I need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So would it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB RAM? Which one will have better performance? Please let me know. Thanks,
Hi,
I would like to buy a dual-core processor. At this time, you can get a quad-core processor from Intel. Multi-core processor is surely faster if your application is multithreaded with good parallelism. We do a search for dual-core prcessor, the improvemnet can be 100% for scientific computation against single core processor. Here is a short article Network multiple computers/processors for scientific parallel computation at http://www.udaparts.com/document/articles/snpisec.htm If you use mutli-core for processing asp.net web request, you certainly need a mutli-core computer, because .NET is able to automatically handle http requests by a pool of threads in parallel and take advantage of multiple cores. [quoted text, click to view] "Sridhar" <Sridhar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:264F74B7-CBE2-4BFD-989F-1CEB4D50FF5A@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I thought > may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here > is > my question. > > I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET application > development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. I > need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core > processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the > applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So > would > it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB > RAM? > Which one will have better performance? > > Please let me know. > > Thanks, > Sridhar.
My development workstation is a recently purchased Dell Dimension C521 (Dual
Core AMD Athlon, 4GB of memory) costing about $800. I'm using the Integrated Video card, the low end processor, and a relativly cheap hard disk. (I do plan to get a PCI-Express dual DVI video card here shortly though). I run WinXP-64 as my operating system, and use Visual Studio 2005 pretty much all day long. It's... great. I would recommend this configuration to just about everyone. The only issue has been drivers for WinXP64 - especially printer drivers. For some reason, HP just doesn't seem to acknowledge that 64-bit exists for their consumer printer product lines. -- Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins [quoted text, click to view] "Sridhar" <Sridhar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:264F74B7-CBE2-4BFD-989F-1CEB4D50FF5A@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I thought > may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here > is > my question. > > I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET application > development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. I > need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core > processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the > applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So > would > it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB > RAM? > Which one will have better performance? > > Please let me know. > > Thanks, > Sridhar.
It's not too bad, really.
All the basic stuff works - but then again, I bought a very generic system (a very common Dell) just to help make sure I wouldn't have driver issues. The only non-standard hardware I have is my fancy Logitech mouse - which has 64-bit drivers. I did find drivers for both the Phaser and Laserjet printers that we have. The only ones without drivers are the wide-format printers that we have. Ironically, these wide format printers were bought at my request, so that engineers can print out UML and ORD diagrams - both of which tend to be pretty large. -- Chris Mullins [quoted text, click to view] "Gabriel Lozano-Morán" <abuse@frontbridge.com> wrote in message news:uHPK4tVHHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >I had the exact same problem last year with lack of driver support for >printers, PCI Wi-Fi cards and so on. My god support for Windows XP Pro >64-bit sux let's hope that it will all be better with the 64-bit edition of >Windows Vista. > > Gabriel Lozano-Morán > The .NET Aficionado > http://www.pointerx.net > > > "Chris Mullins" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:u1gkXMVHHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> My development workstation is a recently purchased Dell Dimension C521 >> (Dual Core AMD Athlon, 4GB of memory) costing about $800. I'm using the >> Integrated Video card, the low end processor, and a relativly cheap hard >> disk. >> >> (I do plan to get a PCI-Express dual DVI video card here shortly though). >> >> I run WinXP-64 as my operating system, and use Visual Studio 2005 pretty >> much all day long. It's... great. I would recommend this configuration to >> just about everyone. >> >> The only issue has been drivers for WinXP64 - especially printer drivers. >> For some reason, HP just doesn't seem to acknowledge that 64-bit exists >> for their consumer printer product lines. >> >> -- >> Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise >> http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins >> >> "Sridhar" <Sridhar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:264F74B7-CBE2-4BFD-989F-1CEB4D50FF5A@microsoft.com... >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I >>> thought >>> may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here >>> is >>> my question. >>> >>> I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET >>> application >>> development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. >>> I >>> need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core >>> processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the >>> applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So >>> would >>> it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB >>> RAM? >>> Which one will have better performance? >>> >>> Please let me know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sridhar. >> >> > >
I had the exact same problem last year with lack of driver support for
printers, PCI Wi-Fi cards and so on. My god support for Windows XP Pro 64-bit sux let's hope that it will all be better with the 64-bit edition of Windows Vista. Gabriel Lozano-Morán The .NET Aficionado http://www.pointerx.net [quoted text, click to view] "Chris Mullins" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u1gkXMVHHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > My development workstation is a recently purchased Dell Dimension C521 > (Dual Core AMD Athlon, 4GB of memory) costing about $800. I'm using the > Integrated Video card, the low end processor, and a relativly cheap hard > disk. > > (I do plan to get a PCI-Express dual DVI video card here shortly though). > > I run WinXP-64 as my operating system, and use Visual Studio 2005 pretty > much all day long. It's... great. I would recommend this configuration to > just about everyone. > > The only issue has been drivers for WinXP64 - especially printer drivers. > For some reason, HP just doesn't seem to acknowledge that 64-bit exists > for their consumer printer product lines. > > -- > Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise > http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins > > "Sridhar" <Sridhar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:264F74B7-CBE2-4BFD-989F-1CEB4D50FF5A@microsoft.com... >> Hi, >> >> I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I thought >> may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here >> is >> my question. >> >> I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET >> application >> development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. I >> need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core >> processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the >> applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So >> would >> it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB >> RAM? >> Which one will have better performance? >> >> Please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Sridhar. > >
If your main task is Visual Studio then AFAIK there's nothing in it that
takes advantage of multiple processors - it's mostly single-threaded stuff - so I'd go for a blindingly fast single processor in preference to a slower one with multiple cores. If the apps you develop are also single threaded then you don't need multiple processors as a test environment either. -- Phil Wilson [Microsoft MVP Windows Installer] [quoted text, click to view] "Sridhar" <Sridhar@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:264F74B7-CBE2-4BFD-989F-1CEB4D50FF5A@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I am not sure if this is the right group to ask this question. I thought > may be some of you might have answer to my question. Now that said, here > is > my question. > > I am planning to purchase dual core processor desktop for .NET application > development. The processor is intel dual core processor with 4 GB RAM. I > need to know how the performance of the iis would be with this dual core > processor? Most of the time I will be using VS.NET to develop the > applications and sometimes debugging them if there are any errors. So > would > it be worth to buy dual core processor or buy single processor with 4 GB > RAM? > Which one will have better performance? > > Please let me know. > > Thanks, > Sridhar.
[quoted text, click to view]
"Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote [Using a Dual Core box for Visual Studio] I've been very happy with my dual-core box running Visual Studio. The build process on my machine has increased dramatically, as Visual Studio is pretty smart about doing builds. The solutions I work in have 40 or so projects in them, and build time is a real issue. My workstation was an $800 box from Dell - (Dimension C521). It's a dual core AMD machine with 4GB of memory running Windows XP Pro x64. For the price, it's a fantastic machine. The on-board video card is able to drive my 24" LCD (1900x1280), although I think I'm going to go get a dual DVI card here shortly. If you were REALLY paranoid about performance, disk I/O is probably the biggest bottleneck on my system in terms of build time. I've got a low-end 7200 RPM SATA drive (that came with the machine). Upgrading this to a SATA raid array, or the new 15k RPM Serial SCSI stuff would be.... fast. -- Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins
But I don't believe VS 2005 does anything (such as build projects in
parallel) to take advantage of multiple processors. It still just builds one project, then another, then another, all serial with no multi-threading. The question is about whether you'd get a faster build with (for example) one 3GHz machine or with a dual 2GHz machine, and it's my belief that the 3GHz machine would do faster builds because VS doesn't do any parallel processing to use two processors and use the available 4GHz That's in effect what the OP is asking. Your build process speed may indeed have increased when you got a new machine, but that's not what the OP is interested in - it's what CPU configuration is preferable. -- Phil Wilson [Microsoft MVP Windows Installer] [quoted text, click to view] "Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%234MYyFDNHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote > > [Using a Dual Core box for Visual Studio] > > I've been very happy with my dual-core box running Visual Studio. The > build process on my machine has increased dramatically, as Visual Studio > is pretty smart about doing builds. > > The solutions I work in have 40 or so projects in them, and build time is > a real issue. > > My workstation was an $800 box from Dell - (Dimension C521). It's a dual > core AMD machine with 4GB of memory running Windows XP Pro x64. For the > price, it's a fantastic machine. The on-board video card is able to drive > my 24" LCD (1900x1280), although I think I'm going to go get a dual DVI > card here shortly. > > If you were REALLY paranoid about performance, disk I/O is probably the > biggest bottleneck on my system in terms of build time. I've got a low-end > 7200 RPM SATA drive (that came with the machine). Upgrading this to a SATA > raid array, or the new 15k RPM Serial SCSI stuff would be.... fast. > > -- > Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# > http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins > >
It's there for C++: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/tour/vs2005_guided_tour/VS2005pro/Smart_Client/CPlusMultiProcessBuilds.htm It *seems* to be there for C#, but I haven't actually tested it. The "feels faster" quotient jumped enough on my new box that I assumed that's what it's doing. -- Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins [quoted text, click to view] "Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote in message news:O8w4QPPNHHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > But I don't believe VS 2005 does anything (such as build projects in > parallel) to take advantage of multiple processors. It still just builds > one project, then another, then another, all serial with no > multi-threading. The question is about whether you'd get a faster build > with (for example) one 3GHz machine or with a dual 2GHz machine, and it's > my belief that the 3GHz machine would do faster builds because VS doesn't > do any parallel processing to use two processors and use the available > 4GHz That's in effect what the OP is asking. Your build process speed > may indeed have increased when you got a new machine, but that's not what > the OP is interested in - it's what CPU configuration is preferable. > -- > Phil Wilson > [Microsoft MVP Windows Installer] > "Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:%234MYyFDNHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> "Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote >> >> [Using a Dual Core box for Visual Studio] >> >> I've been very happy with my dual-core box running Visual Studio. The >> build process on my machine has increased dramatically, as Visual Studio >> is pretty smart about doing builds. >> >> The solutions I work in have 40 or so projects in them, and build time is >> a real issue. >> >> My workstation was an $800 box from Dell - (Dimension C521). It's a dual >> core AMD machine with 4GB of memory running Windows XP Pro x64. For the >> price, it's a fantastic machine. The on-board video card is able to drive >> my 24" LCD (1900x1280), although I think I'm going to go get a dual DVI >> card here shortly. >> >> If you were REALLY paranoid about performance, disk I/O is probably the >> biggest bottleneck on my system in terms of build time. I've got a >> low-end 7200 RPM SATA drive (that came with the machine). Upgrading this >> to a SATA raid array, or the new 15k RPM Serial SCSI stuff would be.... >> fast. >> >> -- >> Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# >> http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins >> >> > >
Now THAT I did not know - that's cool.
-- Phil Wilson [Microsoft MVP Windows Installer] [quoted text, click to view] "Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ODGFrwPNHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > It's there for C++: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/tour/vs2005_guided_tour/VS2005pro/Smart_Client/CPlusMultiProcessBuilds.htm > > It *seems* to be there for C#, but I haven't actually tested it. The > "feels faster" quotient jumped enough on my new box that I assumed that's > what it's doing. > > -- > Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# > http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins > > "Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote in message > news:O8w4QPPNHHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> But I don't believe VS 2005 does anything (such as build projects in >> parallel) to take advantage of multiple processors. It still just builds >> one project, then another, then another, all serial with no >> multi-threading. The question is about whether you'd get a faster build >> with (for example) one 3GHz machine or with a dual 2GHz machine, and it's >> my belief that the 3GHz machine would do faster builds because VS doesn't >> do any parallel processing to use two processors and use the available >> 4GHz That's in effect what the OP is asking. Your build process speed >> may indeed have increased when you got a new machine, but that's not what >> the OP is interested in - it's what CPU configuration is preferable. >> -- >> Phil Wilson >> [Microsoft MVP Windows Installer] >> "Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:%234MYyFDNHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> "Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson@wonderware.something.com> wrote >>> >>> [Using a Dual Core box for Visual Studio] >>> >>> I've been very happy with my dual-core box running Visual Studio. The >>> build process on my machine has increased dramatically, as Visual Studio >>> is pretty smart about doing builds. >>> >>> The solutions I work in have 40 or so projects in them, and build time >>> is a real issue. >>> >>> My workstation was an $800 box from Dell - (Dimension C521). It's a dual >>> core AMD machine with 4GB of memory running Windows XP Pro x64. For the >>> price, it's a fantastic machine. The on-board video card is able to >>> drive my 24" LCD (1900x1280), although I think I'm going to go get a >>> dual DVI card here shortly. >>> >>> If you were REALLY paranoid about performance, disk I/O is probably the >>> biggest bottleneck on my system in terms of build time. I've got a >>> low-end 7200 RPM SATA drive (that came with the machine). Upgrading this >>> to a SATA raid array, or the new 15k RPM Serial SCSI stuff would be.... >>> fast. >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C# >>> http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins >>> >>> >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |