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.

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.




"Sridhar" <Sridhar (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

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 (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

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

"Gabriel Lozano-Morán" <abuse (AT) frontbridge (DOT) com> wrote

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]
"Sridhar" <Sridhar (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

"Phil Wilson" <phil.wilson (AT) wonderware (DOT) 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]
"Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

It's there for C++:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/to...cessBuilds.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 (AT) wonderware (DOT) something.com> wrote

Now THAT I did not know - that's cool.
--
Phil Wilson
[Microsoft MVP Windows Installer]
"Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cmullins (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote