Dual Core Prescott???!!!

[Spitfire_x86]

<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Jun/bch20040609025489.htm" target="_new">Click!</A>


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[PukePile]

Damn looks like there thorwing all there hopes and dreams into the prescott. Dual and 64 bit.What really interseted me about that article was the pentuim-m's haveing shorter pipelines.Does that mean they will have fewer clock cycles as well?Also I wonder if those M chips will have unlocked multipliers like the mobile athlons.Doubt it but you never know they might want to copy what adm did with there mobile bartons.

40k in aquamark 3
<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=77119011
" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=77119011
</A>
P4b2.4@2.8||1024mb DDR@392mhz||9800pro@414/732||Viewsonic UltraBrite 19"||Kensington 800 dpi mouse.

 

[Coop]

Yeah, Intel likes to copy

Toms Hardware Site is a joke !
Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D, you know what im talking about Tom !

 

[Zoron]

You're still here?

I'm very disappointed... I thought you'd finally gone for good.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[addiarmadar]

YEAAAAA! More heat. Keep this up and I wont need a furnace anymore.

Mobile Barton 2500+ @ 2420mhz 11x220 1.7v
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to XT(420/730)

 

[ChipDeath]

YAY! Marshmallows on sticks time!

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
Summer's here! so ease off the overclock...
XP1700+ @166x12 (~2Ghz), 1.475 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 400/730

 

[HardWareBoss]

Ya it was going to be used with Tejas. So now with Scotty.

 

[Xeon]

Hmm your just beaming with intelligence.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[flamethrower205]

You owe me a new monitor, I scratched till I ruined my damn screen, and still nothing!

SEX is like math. Add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, and hope you dont multiply

 

[Xeon]

Oh there is a disclaimer there read closer.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
<font color=white>In the case of over scratching contact THG for property damage claims.</font color=white>

 

[chuck232]

Eh, who knows. It seems as though it's not only Intels 90nm process if broken. Just look at IBM.

In any case, have they said this'll be on 90nm? For all we know it could be 65nm. It will be in 2005...

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6482578" target="_new">3D Mark2K1 Compare</A>

 

[Crashman]

they might want to copy what adm did with there mobile bartons

Archer Daniels Midland makes bartons too? Wow, those must be the ones that burn out! Because I haven't seen any AMD bartons burn...

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[PukePile]

?

40k in aquamark 3
<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=77119011
" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=77119011
</A>
P4b2.4@2.8||1024mb DDR@392mhz||9800pro@414/732||Viewsonic UltraBrite 19"||Panisonic DVD-RW

 

[Crashman]

Just poking fun at you for saying adm, I know you meant AMD.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Ncogneto]

Thought xp only supported dual processor systems, with dual core and hyperthreading the OS will see 4 processors.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[P4Man]

>Thought xp only supported dual processor systems, with dual
>core and hyperthreading the OS will see 4 processors.

To the OS a dual core chip system ought to be the same as a 2 way SMP (single cored) one. AFAIK, XP Home only supports 1 physical (2 logical) cpu's so it won't work with a dual core chip (be it P4 or K8) unless some update/Service pack solves that. XP Pro only supports 2 physical (4 logical) cpu's AFAIK, so again, XP pro should work with a single chip, dual core (P4 or K8), but not with a 2 way dual core chip. As it is, you'd need some Windows 2003 server licence to run such a setup.

Considering it was hard for intel to presuade microsoft to licence a HT chip as just one chip (so it would work with XP Home), I really don't think MS is going to consider a dual cored chip as anything but "2 cpu's". I don't even know if it would be possible for the OS to determine wether something is dual cored or 2 way SMP.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Ncogneto]

I think you miss the point:

Processor......................OS See's

1 cpu no HT.......................1 CPU
1 cpu with HT.....................2 CPU's
1 dual core cpu no HT.............2 CPU's
2 single core cpu no HT...........2 CPU's
1 dual core cpu with HT...........4 CPU's
2 single core CPU's with HT.......4 CPU's

My question is will Windows XP support 4 Cpu's in this manner or will you need an OS upgrade/patch. It looks like M$ might use this to help sell a new OS (probably with 64 bit capabilities).




It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 06/13/04 11:08 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[P4Man]

>I think you miss the point:

Not really I think, but maybe I did not make myself very clear. Let's try again using your table and adding what XP home and XP Pro currently would support:

1 cpu no HT.................1 CPU.....Home & Pro (1 core)
1 cpu with HT...............2 CPU's...Home & Pro (1 core)
1 dual core cpu no HT.......2 CPU's...Only Pro (2 cores)
2 single core cpu no HT.....2 CPU's...Only Pro (2 cores)
1 dual core cpu with HT.....4 CPU's...Only Pro (2 cores)
2 single core CPU's with HT.4 CPU's...Only Pro (2 cores)

Basically HT is "free" from a licencing POV, and dual core for the moment is just considered dual cpu.

Windows XP can differentiate between a (single) hyperthreaded cpu and a dual cpu IOW, XP, unlike 2WK can differentiate a logical core from a physical one, and support for the logical ones is "free". This is unlike windows 2000 however, so if there had been a "single cpu windows 2000 'home' version", it would NOT run on a P4 HT, at least not with HT enabled.

Windows XP however, can not AFAIK differentiate between 2 cpu's (smp) and one dual cored cpu. In fact I'm not sure *any* OS (let alone app) could, as a dual cored cpu simply is two cpu's on a single die. At least not without using tricks like reading the CPUID and making *assumptions* on its packaging (like two chips, or one dual core chip). From an OS point of view, wether a system has 8 physical cores arranged in a 8 chip configuration, 4 dual core chips, or 1 or 2 MCM's with 2 or 4 cores per module is completely transparent: its always 8 physical cores (possibly more logical ones).

It is an interesting point though, since if future intel based offering would require dual cored chips (dothan based) to be competitive with single cored AMD solutions, this will hurt. Maybe not so much for most of us enthousiasts that will run XP PRo on a single cpu system anyway (so we already have a "spare cpu licence"), but definately in the consumer market where XP Home rules, in the workstation market where XP Pro would not support dual chips (4 cores) and even more in the server market where most software is licenced per cpu/core.

Wether or not microsoft will change its licensing policy in this regard is anyone's guess, but my guess is :no. At best they might expand XP Pro to support up to 4 cores on but AFAIK, Oracle, or any other server apps considers dualcored chips simply as two cpu's,and quad core/single MCM systems as a 4 cpu system, and therefore you pay licences accordingly. I don't think MS is going to give dual core opteron or dothan based servers a nice discount by effectively letting customers pay a licence for a system with only half as many cpu's. If they would, rest assured dual cored server chips would sell like hotcakes, and unless you're running opensource/free software, you'd be nuts NOT getting dual cored chips.

Is this more clear now ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Ncogneto]

Is this more clear now ?

Well yes and no. The definative answer I am looking for is " does the current version of Windows XP pro supportany combination of 4 CPU's"?

I understand that dual core Pentiums with HT enabled with present to the OS 2 actual cpu's and two logical Cpu's. Is this setup supported currently? don't zeon's have HT enabled now?


It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[P4Man]

> does the current version of Windows XP pro supportany
>combination of 4 CPU's"

To use your words: "yes and no" It supports <b>2 physical</b> cores, period. Those can be HT enabled (xeon has had HT for a looong time), so <b>4 logical </b>cpu's is possible, no problem, but more than 2 physical cores, is not possible, regardless in how many chips they are packaged, and regardless of hyperthreading. That is for XP.

AFAIK Windows 2000 will not support 2 Xeons with HT enabled, unless you have a server licence that allows 4(+) way machines.

To recap:
A system with 2 Xeon cpu's with HT enabled (4 logical cores)=
2 cpu's for XP
4 cpu's for windows 2000

Using dual (quad,..) core chips will NOT behave like HT enabled chips, each core will count as a real cpu for any current OS.

If intel would ever develop a 4 way SMT implementation of hyperthreading, so 1 cpu/1 core would behave like 4 logical cpu's, I'm uncertain how XP would cope with it. I suspect it would still count as a single cpu, but I'm not sure. Its not like we have a chip to test it with either

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =