How Windows 8 Will Deal With Tons of CPU Cores

[Marcus Yam]

Windows 8 will be more hard"core" with multiple cores.

How Windows 8 Will Deal With Tons of CPU Cores : Read more

 

[de5_Roy]

nice upgrade from the old stuff. it'd be nice to see the more detailed view every time task manager starts up. in win 7 i have to click 'show process from all users' every time to bring up the detailed view. i haven't used the win 8 dp yet.
imo they look somewhat like sysinternals' (ms aquired them before win 7 came out) process monitor and process explorer.

 

[Haserath]

Power users (or regular users who just want to break things) can also assign a processor affinity for a certain process within this task manager.

It's like they know me so well.

 

[kancaras]

ms go patent it!!

 

[kaisellgren]

I hope they come up with a way to group similar processes. For example, I am running Chrome now and looking at my Win 7 task manager I am seeing 24 chrome.exe*32 processes. That's not convenient...

 

[mayankleoboy1]

where can i get 160 logical cores?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Sounds like something thatll hold up, or be useful, for the life of the OS

 

[ronch79]

Looks like AMD FX is just one year ahead of its time. Multi-threaded software is really the way to go moving forward. In this regard, it's good to see the FX outperforming the i7-2600K in some heavily-threaded apps, and Windows 8 putting more pressure on ISVs to make their apps use as many cores as there are stars in the sky.

 

[Marthian]

This is what Windows 7's Task Manager looks like when dealing with a system of 160 logical cores.

That's a screenshot from Windows 8, stop lying to us.

 

[icracked]

in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.

 

[cyberangel_777]

You should have a zoom & PAN

 

[NightLight]

[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]
that's like saying you have a delorian time machine, but you're out of gasoline and it won't be invented any time soon.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]

I don't follow your logic. Just because it is easier to get info from multiple cores does not change the performance of either.

 

[ta152h]

The title of this is misleading. It's not apparent, at least from this article, that Windows 8 deals with cores substantially differently (although I have they do), but that Task Manager displays them differently.

I was expecting an article on how Windows 8 differs in the way it distributes tasks with lots of cores, not how Task Manager displays them.

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]where can i get 160 logical cores?[/citation]

From what i could guess, it's probably intels 10 Core HT xeon cpu's and 8 of them on a server board.

10 cores*8=80*2(from HT)=160

[citation][nom]Marthian[/nom]That's a screenshot from Windows 8, stop lying to us.[/citation]

Nope. That's a windows 7 screen shot for sure unless MS done an update that my computer hasn't revived.

Here what i have of windows 8 and there no option that you can switch back to the original task manager look.

http://s760.photobucket.com/albums/xx241/warmon6/Windows%208%20dev%20preview/

 

[Guest]

The first screenshot has Physical Memory (total) 1048565 MB = 1.00 TeraByte of RAM !

 

[alyoshka]

Where did they get 160 Logical cores from?

 

[alyoshka]

Oh yeah, and they put all 8 processors on one board? where'd they get the board from? Max I heard of was 4 Processors on a Board.

 

[buzznut]

I like the 2034 threads.

 

[saturnus]

160 cores is far from the limit of Windows 8 will be able to handle. It's just an example. Windows 8 is optimized so that it can also be used with coming ARMv8 designs that can have up to 128 cores on a single die, and can link up to 8 of these dies for a total of 1024 logical cores. It's actually possible to link an unlimited number of ARMv8 dies but beyond 8 there will be a performance hit.

 

[jhansonxi]

Nifty but pointless. The processes and threads should be dynamically assigned to cores for load-balancing and thermal management in real-time. The core assignments should be constantly changing so it's just nerd eye-candy.

Manually assigning affinity has no real benefit unless you are intentionally trying to break something or have really poor scheduling.

While heavily loading a specific core may be useful for stress testing new hardware it's not likely to of benefit unless you're a hardware engineer.

 

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]
ahead of its time and poorly executed. all OS's are optimized for multiple CPU's. WIN 8 probably won't perform any better when it comes to more cores.

and its power hungry. even less reason to get it

 

[legacy7955]

Power users (or regular users who just want to break things) can also assign a processor affinity for a certain process within this task manager.

I like that quote. Occasionally Tom's writers surprise me.

 

[killerchickens]

Windows 8 will probably make bulldozer faster because windows 7 doesn't take into account that the cores share parts and if the threads were distributed across the cores with shared resources properly it should go faster. For example if there is a 4 thread load each thread should use its own modular unit not put the 4 threads on the first 2 modular units. Then each core can use all the shared resources of the unit.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]where can i get 160 logical cores?[/citation]
Don't worry, you don't need that to play Crysis...or anything else for that matter, until, who knows, maybe 2050...or forever. That's just a made up guess.