will XP Pro support (2) Dual core Intel CPU's with Hyper Threading?

C

cyr0n_k0r

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 30, 2001
Messages
5,360
We are purchasing a new system at work and it will come with (2) Dual Core Intel CPU's with HyperThreading.

So we are going to end up with 8 virtual processors.

Will XP support this setup? Or is another OS required?
 
Will XP function well would be our next question? Would it be useable? IE, would it be able to take advantage of the 8 virtual processors?
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
Will XP function well would be our next question? Would it be useable? IE, would it be able to take advantage of the 8 virtual processors?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would work. The question is, would it work well? You probably wouldn't gain anything over somebody using four cores, unless you've got a lot of multithreaded apps running at the same time.
 
It works fine. All Microsoft OS's have the same basic kernel. The difference is really the licensing. Many people have used Windows XP on Xeon systems with two dual core processors each with Hyperthreading.

I've also seen a couple reviews on the subject. Rest assured, it works fine.
 
Yea, it'll work. Microsoft goes by the # of sockets, NOT the # of cores.

Proc.jpg
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
would it be able to take advantage of the 8 virtual processors?
Click to expand...

just to nit-pick but that would be 4 physical processors and 4 virtual processors
 
pstang said:
just to nit-pick but that would be 4 physical processors and 4 virtual processors
Click to expand...
Really? I'd call it 2 physical processors, 4 physical cores, and 8 virtual processors. Hyperthreading isn't one "real" cpu and one "virtual" one; it's two "virtual" ones. There's no difference between one and the other, other than one's number 0 and the other's number 1.

 
okay, now the important questions, gaming benchmarks or encoding benchmarks, pls? =).
 
Poncho said:
Yea, it'll work. Microsoft goes by the # of sockets, NOT the # of cores.

Proc.jpg
Click to expand...
what the hell is that running that it needs 12 gigs of ram?
 
defcon1 =).

but seriously, how about some encoding benchies since gaming won't do much =). is it gonna encode things@lightning speeds?
 
JediFonger said:
defcon1 =).

but seriously, how about some encoding benchies since gaming won't do much =). is it gonna encode things@lightning speeds?
Click to expand...

forget the HT, 4 cores alone do wonders for video encoding
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
Will XP function well would be our next question? Would it be useable? IE, would it be able to take advantage of the 8 virtual processors?
Click to expand...
According to Hexus H/T may be detrimental to your performance. They used WinXP-x64 with dual-core H/T enabled Xeons and turning off H/T apparently improved performance in many cases.

quote:
"Turning on HT on the Paxville system just made things even worse. HyperThreading creates two processors for the OS to schedule threads on, per core, but remember that core is singular. There's still the same dual-ALU, dual-issue, long-stage pipeline to share. Cache misses, pipeline stalls and other facets that stall performance on a single-threaded core, hurt up to twice as much on a HyperThreaded system. Make all those CPUs fight for access to lacking resources such as the memory controller and I/O ASICs and you have a recipe for something that's not going to go very fast in the majority of situations."
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
what the hell is that running that it needs 12 gigs of ram?
Click to expand...


:D Let me ask you something... you've got 2 piles of memory in front of you and have to pick which ones you want to put in your system. In one pile you've got 512 FBDIMMs and int he other you've got 2gb FBDIMMs...... which one are you going to grab from? Yea, me too. :D Really though... that should have shown up as 16gb but IIRC there was an issue with that board. Can't recall it was a while ago. Oh... and max capacity on those boards is 64gb so i was a little light. :D
 
Poncho said:
Yea, it'll work. Microsoft goes by the # of sockets, NOT the # of cores.

Proc.jpg
Click to expand...
I think that MS needs to redo the Task manager CPU performance graph: Needs to be 2 rows, by 4 graphs...

I don't know why, but 8 CPU usage charts are sexy, even if I couple put them to good use (yet).
 
drizzt81 said:
I think that MS needs to redo the Task manager CPU performance graph: Needs to be 2 rows, by 4 graphs...

I don't know why, but 8 CPU usage charts are sexy, even if I couple put them to good use (yet).
Click to expand...


Wait until there is quad core w/HT X 2..... or better yet, 16 core CPUs x4.... or... sorry, got a bit carried away there. :D
 
Poncho said:
Wait until there is quad core w/HT X 2..... or better yet, 16 core CPUs x4.... or... sorry, got a bit carried away there. :D
Click to expand...
Really, that means an end to the cpu chart we've all grown used to. It's not very realistic to display 8 or 16 virtual cpu's. Some type of more sophisticated system will be needed.
 
dekard said:
Really, that means an end to the cpu chart we've all grown used to. It's not very realistic to display 8 or 16 virtual cpu's. Some type of more sophisticated system will be needed.
Click to expand...


From what I understand there are new licensing issues with Vista regarding multiple cores and a change to the task manager as well. It's looking like it'll no longer be based on # of sockets but rather the # of cores. Hope your pocket books are ready for a good ol fashioned Microsoft butt raping. :D
 
Poncho said:
It's looking like it'll no longer be based on # of sockets but rather the # of cores. Hope your pocket books are ready for a good ol fashioned Microsoft butt raping. :D
Click to expand...
Not again!
eek.gif

/me refuses to bend over this time
 
Poncho said:
From what I understand there are new licensing issues with Vista regarding multiple cores and a change to the task manager as well. It's looking like it'll no longer be based on # of sockets but rather the # of cores. Hope your pocket books are ready for a good ol fashioned Microsoft butt raping. :D
Click to expand...
I'm running the Vista 2 beta right now and there are no changes to the task manager to speak of. Still the same old, same old... I'm thinking thats not going to work long term as we approach 8 cores like this system and especially once we move to 16+ core systems.
 
MS'll just play it smart and limit "Home" versions of Vista to 4 CPUs virtual or not, or 2 sockets or something. Leave the Ent. versions with a higher socket/cpu limit.
 
dekard said:
Really, that means an end to the cpu chart we've all grown used to. It's not very realistic to display 8 or 16 virtual cpu's. Some type of more sophisticated system will be needed.
Click to expand...
Something like a single graph with multiple multicolored lines demonstrating usage, instead of a different graph per cpu? Set it up like perfmon - with the ability to add/remove CPUs from the graph.

On a side note, I multitask like mad, and even I can't possibly find a use for more than 4 cores on a desktop system. (90% of the time, 2 cores works fine) Wow. 8's kinda... Insane!
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Something like a single graph with multiple multicolored lines demonstrating usage, instead of a different graph per cpu? Set it up like perfmon - with the ability to add/remove CPUs from the graph.

On a side note, I multitask like mad, and even I can't possibly find a use for more than 4 cores on a desktop system. (90% of the time, 2 cores works fine) Wow. 8's kinda... Insane!
Click to expand...
True... I think as applications are more broadly written for SMP support you'll see better multi threading support, so.... More cores will automatically be used as needed. Should be an invisible process... With the exponential increase in processing power that comes from adding more cores I just hope that the application developers don't get to lazy with their coding.
 
dekard said:
True... I think as applications are more broadly written for SMP support you'll see better multi threading support, so....
Click to expand...
Isn't that tautological?

dekard said:
More cores will automatically be used as needed. Should be an invisible process... With the exponential increase in processing power that comes from adding more cores I just hope that the application developers don't get to lazy with their coding.
Click to expand...
How does adding more cores give an exponential increase?
 
mikeblas said:
Isn't that tautological?
Click to expand...
No, since SMP and multi threading are two completely different things. My reference was that it wouldn't be harder to use more cores as application development is moving in a direction that will support that invisibly.

mikeblas said:
How does adding more cores give an exponential increase?
Click to expand...
hrmm... this one seems kinda of obvious... 2 x core = double the power. Add in moore's law and you've got rapid increase in processing power, ie, 4x4 or kentfield.
 
dekard said:
No, since SMP and multi threading are two completely different things. My reference was that it wouldn't be harder to use more cores as application development is moving in a direction that will support that invisibly.
Click to expand...
Indeed, SMP and multi-threading are two different things. But what you said was that "as applications are more broadly written for SMP support you'll see better multi threading support". What do you think the difference is? What application would have SMP support without having multi-threading support?

And, tell me, what application development is moving towards invisible support? Invisible multithread support, or invisible SMP support?

dekard said:
hrmm... this one seems kinda of obvious... 2 x core = double the power. Add in moore's law and you've got rapid increase in processing power, ie, 4x4 or kentfield.
Click to expand...
Twice the cores giving double the power is kinda obviously a linear increase.
 
unhappy_mage said:
That would be a linear increase.

Click to expand...


Absolutely, it would... but then add in Moore's law and you've got something the fairly closely resembles exponential increase.
 
dekard said:
Absolutely, it would... but then add in Moore's law and you've got something the fairly closely resembles exponential increase.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. I thought your original post said "an exponential increase that comes from adding more cores", not "an exponential increase that comes from Moore's Law".
 
mikeblas said:
Oh, I see. I thought your original post said "an exponential increase that comes from adding more cores", not "an exponential increase that comes from Moore's Law".
Click to expand...

more cores at a presumably faster speed...

anyway.. i'm removing my subscription to this thread.. i'm not here for semantics..
 
Poncho said:
Wait until there is quad core w/HT X 2..... or better yet, 16 core CPUs x4.... or... sorry, got a bit carried away there. :D
Click to expand...
You`d be looking at something like this:
32sc5.jpg


8 physical cores with HT
 
Whoa, I'm jealous. 16 friggin cores! That sure beats my two cores (pentium d).
 
OC_LeGeND said:
You`d be looking at something like this:
32sc5.jpg


8 physical cores with HT
Click to expand...


The thing that got me was that they are all being used to some degree. DAAAAMMMMNNN!

What kind of gaming machine is that?! ;)
 
Ur_Mom said:
The thing that got me was that they are all being used to some degree. DAAAAMMMMNNN!

What kind of gaming machine is that?! ;)
Click to expand...

Not a very efficient one :p

Insane rig, that's for sure... But that's obviously server 2000/2003 or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top