Mulit-core proc OS problems worth it?

[mpjesse]

I guess the question for me is this:

Does WinXP Home support dual core CPU's?

As someone said earlier, it's a licensing issue- not a support issue. Regardless if the machine is dual processor or dual core, WinXP Home (from what I understand) is licensed to work only with 1 CPU. At this point I don't see how Windows can possibly know the difference between dual processors and dual cores. To the operating system, they're the same!

I tried googling all this and to my surprise, I couldn't find crap! I do know for sure that WinXP Home (when it initally came out) only supports 1 CPU regardless if it's HT, Dual Core, or Dual Socket/Processor. However, this could have changed in SP2 or a patch. Any thoughts Slvr?

-mpjesse

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I'm pretty sure that XP Home will run dualcore as dualcore. When HT was invented the concept of differentiating between 'logical' and 'physical' processors was introduced. And since WinXP Home will run a HT proc just fine, I'd imagine that it'd run a dualcore proc just fine too. After all, a dualcode proc is still just one CPU with two 'logical' processors. The only difference is that the second 'logical' processor is also a real core, where as with HT it isn't. So I'd expect it to work. And I've heard plenty of people running two dualcores on XP Pro with all four cores firing, and XP Pro only allows two procs. So it stands to reason that XP Home would use the same logic for one proc.

The one thing that I'm not sure of is how XP Home would handle the rare P4EE dualie with two cores and HT on each core. But then who'd run one of those on XP Home? (Hell, who'd even buy one of those?) Technically speaking, it should work, as the licensing specifically identifies per physical processor, not per logical processor. Just as a quad-core processor should work. But M$ might not be that far ahead of the game yet. I don't really know. I haven't heard of anyone trying. **really big shrug**

 

[mpjesse]

Technically speaking, it should work, as the licensing specifically identifies per physical processor, not per logical processor.

Yes, that makes sense.

But M$ might not be that far ahead of the game yet. I don't really know. I haven't heard of anyone trying.

I read something about a year ago (I think it was on The Register) that said M$ wasn't going to try and make people buy 2 licenses for dual core or quad core CPU's. They said it would "detrimental" to the advancement of PC's. So that's good I guess.

-mpjesse

 

[mpjesse]

Scratch that, what I read was this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/11/ms_virtual_change/

As of December, Microsoft plans to charge customers on a per instance instead of per processor model. This scheme will cover products such as SQL Server, BizTalk Server, Internet Security Accelerator Server and other server software. Most impressively, it will apply whether you run Virtual Server or rival VMware virtual machine software, which is much more popular than Microsoft's code.

So I guess the verdict is still out on Vista and whether 4 core support will be there at no extra cost.

:?

-mpjesse

 

[Corasik]

XP Home, and XP Pro treat Hyperthreading (And I assume Dual Core), exactly the same way.

I have XP Pro on my work computers, and naturally I get two CPU in the control panel/hardware, and also on the task manager/performance there are load indicators for both cores.

My computer at home is running XP Home, because I dont need the additional networking features, it correctly detects my HT P4 as two cpu's installs the full ACPI Multiprocessor HAL, enables the second load indicator in the task manager, allows the control of processor affinity etc.

However, if you have installed XP with the single processor HAL, and then just switch processors, it wont always 'automatically' update itself to the ACPI Multiprocessor HAL. When this happens it remains locked into a single processor mode, and hyperthreading (Or Dual Core) will not be enabled.

If the ACPI Multiprocessor Hal is installed correctly, it will be listed under Computer in the device manager as ACPI Multiprocessor PC, and the second processor will be visible. If this is not happening, then enabling HT in bios could cause instablility in the system.

In reality there is very little difference between XP Home, and XP Pro, Home has a few files missing from its CD compared to Pro, and its licence key disables additional processors, but thats about it.

XP Home does not support more than one CPU, but it should support a CPU with 2 Cores, and quite possibly more. I would not be surprised if a clean install of XP Home on a the new dual core EE's will give all 4 virtual cores.

 

[function9]

I don't know the exact terms or if this is even right, maybe slvr can correct anything. But if the BIOS detects and distinguishes what kind of cpu(s)/core(s) are installed, why wouldn't the OS be able to read this and make that distinction? I would think there some kind of hardware ID or something else that makes it possible for the BIOS and OS to be able to know when there are multiple sockets, single sockets, dualcore, single core w/HT, single core, dualcore w/HT, etc. I do know the OS can recognize the difference between a virtual core (what HT is) and a physical core, I believe this was the issue with XP when HT first came about. XP at first was treating the virtual core as a 2nd, physical core which its not, contributing to the performance hit some saw at first. Seeing that in a dualcore chip there are 2 physical cores, this shouldn't be a problem. Again if I made any mistakes, please correct me.

 

[Zoron]

Corasik has it right. I've worked on a couple of systems with dual-core procs, and with XP Home installed. Both showed two processors when looking at the CPU graphs.

 

[mpjesse]

Right on.

 

[rower30]

OK,

The harware is in. I listed the system in the thread already. And no, this system hasn't been built yet, and I wanted to flush out problems early.

As for my existing system why would I be paranoid to go into BIOS and disable multi-thread for the Intel CPU? And, it does show a second CPU in the XPHome device manager in the hardware profile. Does that mean
ihe CPU does anything? The task manager says that yes, there is CPU load on both CPU's. Not a lot, but there is some. I don't have real multitask programs so the best I could do is run a virus scan and download a file off of the Internet at the same time...and hope it doesn't crash.

Why is Hyperthread not working on my current P4PE Asus motherboard with BIOS 1007? It goes to the BSOD and / or freezes. No error messages. I have the problem isolated to a possible hardware driver for my hardware, not windows, modem. I have the newest modem driver, but it may not allow dual CPU's. US Robotics isn't probably going to mess with the driver for this device, either.

There is cross-over legacy for older hardware and software. PC's are a compilation of stuff and it is sometimes impossible to tell what is over the line. There are a lot of people still on dial-up, and use AMD X2's. The actual method of real verses virtual (the AMD isn't a virtual CPU) may be less problamatic with my stuck in time modem driver. Who would make a dial-up midem dual processor compliant, anyway? Maybe now they will, who knows. But, dual CPU's do indeed need different drivers in the HAL layer, or why would AMD issue a new X2 driver?

I'm going to use the X2 and see what happens. If it is problamatic, I'll get the single core and wait it out a few years till I have a choice other than dial-up. I'm not in town, or want to spend over $30/mo for Inernet.

This discussion went crazy ways, but there are indeed problems that aren't a result of the user's "error". Using a modem that has always been fine with the newest driver is the best anyone could have done. Dual CPU's are not transparent to really open architecture PC's. Maybe they are on workstations and the like but how old is the hardware there?

 

[purelithium]

Yes, it does depend on what you have in your PC for dual core, or hyperthread. Neither is as stable as a single core, by a long shot..... blah blah blah blah blah..... ad nauseum

Have you ever even USED a dual core system? Why do so many companies and large servers use Dual processor systems running microsoft products rely on those systems to stay rock solid, if YOU say they are unstable?

I think you are a paranoid ignoramus who doesn't know what you are talking about.

 

[Corasik]

Perhaps rower30's P4HT is actually faulty, and causing the problem, or perhaps he's right and its his modem driver, although I find that a little hard to believe, but I wont argue that he's got problems or insult his intelligence.

I can only say that I've only ever had hyperthreading enabled on Springdale, and Canterwood motherboards, and northwood P4's and found them to be almost totally reliable with HT enabled on XP Home and XP Pro.

Now, to clarify the 'almost' I have found two applications that totally hate Hyperthreading. One is a network monitoring application called Sniffer Pro. With HT enabled it would cause my PC to randomly reboot. The second is an older game, SimCity 4000. This game would just drop to desktop without any errors with HT enabled.

Apart from those 2 problems, I am still a believer in HT, as it really does make the PC's feel more responsive when multi tasking, and the problems I've had are extremely rare, and not a major concern.

I suspect that dual core is alot better than HT in any case, as the virtual core can only operate in certain conditions when there is the appropriate part of the cpu available, IE the P4 only has 2 integer units, so if the virtual core 0 is using them, core 1 would stall if it tried to use one, and have to wait until core 0 was done. With true dual core both cpu's will have all componants ready and available at all times.

 

[function9]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, this is more like it.

I have the problem isolated to a possible hardware driver for my hardware, not windows, modem.

Have you tried a different modem or is the system fine before you install the drivers/unintsall them? Like I said in a previous post, sometimes software/drivers actually might have issues with certain platforms. Back when the AthlonXP was king, I knew of hardly anyone running a dual cpu rig that had success using a Creative sound card. The drivers would just BSOD randomly. This wasn't just 1 or 2 people this was happening to either. So I would start with uninstalling the modem or trying a different one.

But, dual CPU's do indeed need different drivers in the HAL layer, or why would AMD issue a new X2 driver?

As far as I know, the only drivers from AMD and patches from MS have been dealing with power state issues regarding the Cool&Quiet functionality. And remembering the article from MS's site, it was a patch for all multicore systems, including traditional dual cpu machines. Also if you look on AMD's site, you'll see that the X2 driver wasn't the only cpu driver to be updated, the driver for every line of cpu that supports C&Q/PowerNow! was updated.

but there are indeed problems that aren't a result of the user's "error".

I think if this post would have been your original one, there wouldn't have been nearly the amount of ranting that went on in this thread.

 

[rower30]

They use REGISTRED software that is GUARATEED to work on dual CPU's. They use dual, or more, CPU's because servers are hit with multiple requests by design, This is why SCSI hard drives and newer SATA drives that have native command queing are used, too, to handle multiple requests.

Now, your home PC IS NOT full of registered software and hardware/drivers is it? As such, it won't run as stable as a registered system.Windows is "pretty good" with single core, and less so with dual. It simply a software and driver compatibility issue. What do you think people slam windows for anyway? Macs? They write and support ONLY their hardware, drivers and software. Amazing why that makes a more stable system. Not to mention, they used SCSI type interface, too.

This stuff isn't exactly unknown. I'm not so sure who knows what, either.

 

[purelithium]

I use registered software. I use Software that is guaranteed to work with dual processing units. SMP is not a new idea, people! It's been around for years! Windows has had support for it for years, I have yet to see any legitimate OS problems that directly result from the use of a dual-core CPU. Windows does not see it any different than a Dual P3 system. SMP is SMP.

I'm not here to defend Windows, because I would much rather the world be done with Microsoft and it's crap. That's why I use Linux. But, I haven't had any problem running XP home, Pro, or Pro x64 on my AMD X2.

 

[rower30]

The problem is getting hardware modems at all. I'll see about a different brand this time around than my US Robotics.

The X2 and MS dual core updates are refered to for stuttering in games on most threads I've seen. Is this not addressed? people in this same thread report that the AMD X2 patch solved most of their problems, too. I've heared that the cool'N quiet feature can keep things too quiet when the CPU is supposed to throttle up. I just didn't install the cool'n quiet driver or software. Are you guys in agreement with this? The AMD CPU seems to be WAY cooler than my Intel 3.06 P4, which hits 60C or better all the time with water cooling.

Still closed systems would avoid all the problems, and Windopws, by nature is a living thing so it won't be plug and play all the time. If a component is a little too plug and chug, I just want to avoid it. But, I've got the X2 up and running and I'll report back how it seems to go.

PS - I have three Quake 4 CD's! Xmas and one from each 7800GT. I sure hope it works with that game!

 

[piasabird]

I think people are walking a thin line in this thread. First of all you have to realize that the dual core technology is new and more or less untested. I for one do not want to pay to be someone elses bata tester and buy some over-prices lemon of a product. I am what you might call a late adopter. I let some other fools do the beta testing. I am not afraid of technology, I just dont want to be stuck with a piece of unusable junk. I want to see on paper what the advantage is of buying this new technology and what the ratio is between the cost and the benefit.

Just like in the Movie, I like the cliche' "Show me the money!"

I just want to get some benefit if it is my money I am spending. I never buy new technology until I am ready and the technology is proven with a track record.

I have been taken before.

 

[function9]

The problem is getting hardware modems at all. I'll see about a different brand this time around than my US Robotics.

I understand that, but for diagnosing a problem, in the least uninstall it or not install it on a fresh Windows install. Whether or not you choose to get a different modem, you'd have some piece of mind to know what's causing the problem.

The X2 and MS dual core updates are refered to for stuttering in games on most threads I've seen. Is this not addressed?

Yes it was. Has nothing to do with the chips actually performing or being "compatible" it has to do with the C&Q function. I noticed this even before I got my dualcore and was on an A64 3200+, games did not respond well with C&Q enabled, in HL2 for example I would see a drop of 10fps consistently compared to C&Q disabled. But look as far back as C&Q has been around, you'll see that it was always recommended to run games with C&Q disabled, so it's not just a problem of dualcore chips. Personally I think C&Q is good in theory, but in reality I don't like it. It's still run by software so if the driver thats controlling the speed and voltage isn't as fast as it can be or as stable as it needs to be, there's going to be problems. As of now, there's too many great after market cooling solutions and these AMD cpus are running cool anyways, I personally don't see a need for C&Q.

I have three Quake 4 CD's! Xmas and one from each 7800GT. I sure hope it works with that game!

I've run that as well as q3, q1, HL1, HL2, and D3. I have yet to see any problem (x2 4400, 6800gt).

But, I've got the X2 up and running and I'll report back how it seems to go.

And don't forget to ENJOY IT! 😀

 

[mpjesse]

I don't have real multitask programs so the best I could do is run a virus scan and download a file off of the Internet at the same time...and hope it doesn't crash.

LOL.

Are you under a lot of stress? You seem really high strung man. Chill out. It's not going to crash on you. My desktop does the same frikin task daily.

Also keep in mind that Windows is handling up to 80 (no less than 20) processes at a time. So it doesn't really matter whether you have a program that benefits from dual core, Windows is going to take advantage of it whether you like it or not. Unless of course you have a blonde moment and do decide to disable one of the cores.

Keep this in mind man: NO ONE in this thread has agreed with you on your opinion that system stability sucks (or is lesser) than a single core CPU compared to a dual core. You're the only one running around with doomsayer comments and opinions.

60 million Elvis fans can't be wrong bud.

-mpjesse

 

[rower30]

OK, so my hunch is right and that Cool'N quiet is best just left out. The only benchmark I've run right now is 3Dmark03, and it hits 25338 3D marks. Srtraigh-up and ZERO overclock (except the eVGA card comes overclocked). But, dual SLI doesn't look like much at 1024 x 678 since it scales better above that with two cards. My older Intel system was 10800 overclocked to 3.34GHz with an X800XL.

So far no issues with the SAME modem and IE6 and Outlook Express. Hey, maybe this is going to be OK after all. IE6 was doing weird things and translating pages in whizzy-wig type hexidecimal fonts instead of graphics. I don't know what that fit was all about, but it doesn't sound memory (lock-ups) or CPU related (BSOD's) at all. Still, I've never seen it before except on this PC. I'm not going to worry about it at this point unless it gets to be consistently bothersome.

The AMD 939 CPU should scale out to 4.8GHz. I'll grab one when they drop in price and, I can stick in a four VPU video card in a single PCIExpresss 32 bit slot later on, too. Or will I?

 

[joset]

The AMD 939 CPU should scale out to 4.8GHz. I'll grab one when they drop in price and, I can stick in a four VPU video card in a single PCIExpresss 32 bit slot later on, too. Or will I?

Excuse me?! I beg your pardon?! (etc)

First off, which AMD - whatever slot - are you talking about, ...Sir? 4.8GHz?! I know the ice is melting in Antarctica; so, are you planning to move there while it lasts?
And... a "four VPU video card in a single PCIExpress 32 bit slot..."?! FOUR VPUs (do you mean GPU or is it 3D Labs, by any chance?) in a single card?! Are you planning to use a PCIe 4x for a... 4 chip graphics card?! Yes, PCIe is a point-to-point, serial, bi-dir 8-bit x number of lanes protocol...
Seriously?! I'll be damned if you're joking!
Well, Sir, do excuse my ironic tone but i really couldn't avoid it.
I don't see how someone can help you further, after so many USEFUL "hunches" posted here, by some of those who know what they're talking about!
Well, maybe it's my problem (i'll think about it later.). After all, "errare humanum est".

Cheers,... Sir!

 

[slvr_phoenix]

After all, "errare humanum est".

Yep. Such is life.

 

[mpjesse]

After all, "errare humanum est".

Take it one step further... "perseverare diabolicum."

🙂

-mpjesse

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Take it one step further... "perseverare diabolicum."

Okay, now that's just not fair. :lol: My Latin is about as good as my ... err ... well ... just about anything but English. 😱 "errare humanum est" took me a few, but I (think) I got it. (Luckily a lot of English still derives from Latin, and maybe I know a little more about Latin than I let on.) But "perseverare diabolicum"? Oh ... hey ... now I get it. (Err ... again ... I think.) Although diabolicum perhaps wouldn't have been one I'd have aimed at there. Okay, yeah, so with the church fetishes in mind it's probably a darker statement than I'm thinking of it as, but, personally, I'd have gone for something more along the lines of bluntly evil or chaotic I guess. I suppose at least that wasn't with a capital D. Hmm. Oh well. Anywho, this has certainly been good for my education and for a chuckle. 😀

Yes, SP is a clue himself some times. 😳

Carry on.

EDIT: **smacks himself** Hey, I really get it now. Wow was I off. Pronunciation is everything. I was transposing the l and the o and that was making a notable difference in the way I was reading the letters prior. He he he. I got it now.

I should just delete this whole damn post, but it's kind of funny. :lol:

 

[rower30]

First, AMD Athlon X@ 4800+ dual core exists TODAY. And, AMD wants the convention to mean 4.8GHz. Are you really that inane to not see that? Of course the FSB is not 4.8GHz. Who's stupid here?

Second, ATI already has the equivalent of two 7800GT's on ONE PCIe 32- bit slot TODAY (an A8N or A8N32 is 32-bit on a single bus). And, it isn't bus bound at this point. So, future cards will place more powerful (one, two or even four smaller VPU's?) video processor units or VPU's (use a "G" if you need to) on single cards. Sometime four smaller VPU's will outstrip two big ones when you work them in parallel. Why waste the money on two PCB's, boxes, connectors, manuals, ETC when one card will do? If the bus gets bound, then maybe they will move to two slots. I doubt it, though. Two 32-bit slots share the same path with the chipset, too. So a 32-bit is not really 32-bit for the PCIe lanes. SLI is a short-term solution just like it was before. It great now and I have no complaints, but a poor way to do things in the long run. A SLI set-up single core 7800 is no faster on a 16-bit bus than a 32-bit bus so until such time a faster VPU exists, the A8N32 is not effective. Two dual VPU's or smaller quad VPU's? Then maybe it will be a good solution, if it ever gets to that.

One card in a 32 bit slot makes way more sense than a split bus and two cards anyway. ATI's solution is more refined, as will Nvidia's next one will be. The next card will be single slot. What the bus limitations will be remain to be seen.

I see no error here, and if you can't manage a topic on some relative level of intuition and deduction, heaven help you. I won't spoon-feed you exactly what you want to read, and exactly the way you want it written. If your intuition is to be looked at intuitively, your future would look no different than it does today.

 

[rower30]

Well, why are YOU so sensible? Let me take all the crap will you! I just got used to being beat on and along you come to get some yourself. Sigh, what's a S&M poster to do when someone else takes his licks for him?

Seriously. I agree with you, and wanted to get a drift on two things, SLI and dual CPU. I don't usually mix a whole bag of new stuff into a new PC. I DO carry tons of OLD stuff, though. Like two Cheetah hard drives mixed with newer SATA drives, 1.44MB floppy (still use it) and a SCSI CD-ROM. I let all that go this time. All new and "improved"...but not perfect.

I will have to admit, X2 AMD CPU's and the Nvidia SLI works great. I've had no set-up issue at all. I am still leary of ATI's graphics solution just yet. Maybe next time. The X2 CPU so far likes my old moved over USRobitics analog modem with IE6 and Outlook Express. I never did figure out how to get Hyperthread working. Oh, everyone liked to point out theirs did, but no one ever got mine to work. If it is a modem driver, so be it. I turned it off. So much for that new technology if I can't use what I need in my PC (an analog modem) based on what's available where I live. And, if different drivers are needed (they are) dual CPU's are NOT transparent to the OS or any software. If it causes BSOD they aren't, and even if software ignores it, it is a waste of resources. The fact that software does ignore it, also points out that dual core is NOT the same old thing.

Sometimes people like to pretend things work when they don't with if, ands, or buts. Those same people don't make the future because you have to find fault with today to make it better tomorrow. And, if you can't find fault, there is no improvement. And, even if it works as advertised, should you be satisfied with that ad? No, you shouldn't, or at least someone shouldn't.