• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Disable 1 core?

C

CoPilotJim

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
120
Hello,

I am trying to find out if there is a way to disable 1 core on a dual core processor. Is this possibe?

Thanks
 
And you would want to do this why?!
If you're trying to optimize single core performance, there's no need. Core 2 can automatically resize the L2 and dedicate more cache to one core if it needs it, etc...

I thought some motherboards had a BIOS option for this.
If not there may be a way to force Windows to use the single processor driver, which should effective disable a core? OR maybe not.

On a side note, I've been trying to figure out a way to disable just one of my legs.... so I rolled over it with a truck and now hop around, it takes longer but its fun to hop. :p
 
I am trying to find out if there is a way to disable 1 core on a dual core processor. Is this possibe?
Click to expand...

Items you need:

1. A razor blade
2. Balls the size of Jupiter

Steps to take:

1. Take razor blade and remove the Intel heat spreader
2. Take the razor and slowly cut down the middle
3. Slowly slide the razor blade underneath the PCB and peal away one of the halfs
4. You now have half of dual core processor

:D ;)
 
This is for my work. Apparently the software we write is slowed down when using a dual core (I haven't witnessed it firsthand, but that's what the boss tells me). So we're trying to figure out if disabling 1 core is possible.
 
EQTakeOffense said:
Items you need:

1. A razor blade
2. Balls the size of Jupiter

Steps to take:

1. Take razor blade and remove the Intel heat spreader
2. Take the razor and slowly cut down the middle
3. Slowly slide the razor blade underneath the PCB and peal away one of the halfs
4. You now have half of dual core processor

:D ;)
Click to expand...

And you have a 1337 keychain.

Uhm. Yeah, I guess a few programs might be hindered by dual core processing. What processor is the little guy in question?
 
I believe it'll be a yonah core. We'll either be ordering a panasonic toughbook or a T62P, I don't think either of those come with merom yet.
 
In the bios of some motherboards there is an option to turn off dual core/hyper-threading. If the bios of the system has the option you can try that.
 
CoPilotJim said:
This is for my work. Apparently the software we write is slowed down when using a dual core (I haven't witnessed it firsthand, but that's what the boss tells me). So we're trying to figure out if disabling 1 core is possible.
Click to expand...

The only time that I could see "dual core" possibly slowing down a program would actually be with Hyperthreading (not really dual core problem).

Where is your proof for this?

I'm picturing a Dlibert cartoon right now, with a clueless boss.... asking why his computer is off.... meanwhile his whole office is black from a power outage. :)
 
CoPilotJim said:
I believe it'll be a yonah core. We'll either be ordering a panasonic toughbook or a T62P, I don't think either of those come with merom yet.
Click to expand...

Toughbooks are CRAP!!!! Trust me. My company has been bying Toughbooks since '00, '01 up until now. They maybe tough on the outside, but it's all worthless when 1 out of 4 crash bad because of shitty hard-drives. We're getting nothing but T60p's now. Half the price and weight of CF-29 (panasonic), with quality components...

Mike
 
Or, you could install single core drivers for windows.
Change acpi multiprocessor pc to uniprocessor pc
 
eno-on said:
Just set affinity to one core and see if performance increases.
Click to expand...

Why do that when you can totally disable the core by installing a uniprocessor HAL ;)
 
ND40oz said:
Why do that when you can totally disable the core by installing a uniprocessor HAL ;)
Click to expand...
Setting affinity is easier, but you should read the post right above yours.
 
eno-on said:
Setting affinity is easier, but you should read the post right above yours.
Click to expand...

I guess my post wasn't sarcastic enough for you...
 
If using WinXP, 2K, etc... put this in your boot .ini file:

/NUMPROCS=1

That is a "quick&dirty" way to disable hyper threading also.

If you want to "re-enable" the second core, just take that line out (no need to manually set it, if not set, it uses all processors that it can find)


EDIT:

To clarify, we have a library (dll) that is linked with our application - this library has a bug with smp sets and will (on rare occasions) crash the application if there is more then one "cpu" in the system (it'll crash even on a single proc if there is hyperthreading). We use that to disable it.

Luckily we are getting rid of this library (going with a differnat vendor that is much better and also doesn't crash with more then one proc in the system)

True story.
 
If your company is going to spend money on dual-core machines, then why not take the time to start optimizing the "program" you write to benifit from dual-core. Sounds pretty lame to buy that, and then go and turn off one core.
 
Why not just try ctrl-alt-del to bring up task manager with the program running, select it in processes and use the right-click context menu to turn off processor asffinity for 1 cpu. Worth a shot...
 
CoPilotJim said:
This is for my work. Apparently the software we write is slowed down when using a dual core (I haven't witnessed it firsthand, but that's what the boss tells me). So we're trying to figure out if disabling 1 core is possible.
Click to expand...


Your boss is full of shit. Worst case scenario the software would only use one core and ignore the existence of the other.
 
chrisf6969 said:
On a side note, I've been trying to figure out a way to disable just one of my legs.... so I rolled over it with a truck and now hop around, it takes longer but its fun to hop. :p
Click to expand...

Yep, I just woke everyone up with that laugh :)
 
Russell said:
Your boss is full of shit. Worst case scenario the software would only use one core and ignore the existence of the other.
Click to expand...

Not true. Some libraries/programs have threading which competly gets all busted up on SMP configurations...

um... check this thread - sure it's a video game, but it's having problems with dual cores:
http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=445423&forum=49

Some applications have really tight timings are are assuming an almost "real time" envoriment... if the OS starts swapping the process between CPUs (Cores, etc) - it can cause the application to crash - or have to recalc, redo the thread it was working on (which could slow down the application).

If your working with millisecond timing and/or very large float/double numbers that do weird calcuations and/or lots of differant threads that require them to sync up and/or share large amount of data with each other it can really fuck with your program. Most program you won't see this in, but it can and does happen [even if it's really rare].
 
budec said:
Not true. Some libraries/programs have threading which competly gets all busted up on SMP configurations...

um... check this thread - sure it's a video game, but it's having problems with dual cores:
http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=445423&forum=49

Some applications have really tight timings are are assuming an almost "real time" envoriment... if the OS starts swapping the process between CPUs (Cores, etc) - it can cause the application to crash - or have to recalc, redo the thread it was working on (which could slow down the application).

If your working with millisecond timing and/or very large float/double numbers that do weird calcuations and/or lots of differant threads that require them to sync up and/or share large amount of data with each other it can really fuck with your program. Most program you won't see this in, but it can and does happen [even if it's really rare].
Click to expand...

If the app is threaded (for SMP/HT), it should work.(PERIOD)

IF it is threaded and its don't work properly, they need to look at the programming/code, NOT the hardware.

If its NOT threaded then there should be no problem, also.

The only way that should be a problem would POSSIBLY be with Hyperthreading chips. Not dual core.
 
chrisf6969 said:


IF it is threaded and its don't work properly, they need to look at the programming/code, NOT the hardware.
Click to expand...


Agreed... but if they don't have access to the code or will take awhile to change, test, deploy, etc - then a cheap and fast work around is to disable 1 core.
Hence the title of the thread and the answer to his question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top