Mulit-core proc OS problems worth it?

[intelamduser]

You need to chill out.
There are millions of dual core machines out there and you have evidently read some articles about the problems with dual core, how many articles have you read 50 or 100, this means that there might be >1% of the people who are using dual core are having problems. From the way you have presented yourself here I am sure you will be in that 1% group.

As others have said here they are using dual core with no problems, we are using over 22 machines with both intel and amd processors, and they are no less stable than a single core, and perfrom as good or better.
Your comments about XP not running dual core really shows your lack of knowledge on this. XP has supported dual processors, quad processors, hyperthreading, and now dual core. How many people are running opertons that don't use xp?

 

[pat]

The answer to this is simple. its the fact that you have XP HOME. Home is not designed to handle multipule processors, pure and simple. If you used XP Pro, your problems would all end.

Humm are you sure. I've heard that XPhome could run dual core but not dual cpu system. I never bothered to search for that too ..

 

[function9]

The answer to this is simple. its the fact that you have XP HOME. Home is not designed to handle multiple processors, pure and simple. If you used XP Pro, your problems would all end.

Actually no, XP Home is restricted by licensing. It can support any number of cores as long as they are contained in one socket. P4 w/HT cpus have no problem with XP Home (my parent's machine is this exact setup). Before dualcores were released there was some big hoopla regarding what XP Pro and Home would support, I believe MS restructured their license for sockets.

Workstations AVOID THIS by limiting apps and hardware to USE MUTI CPU / DUAL CORE SPECIFICALLY, and the apps are approved to work with the hardware.

Would you mind pointing me to some of this hardware and software that's not approved to be used in a dual cpu/multicore environment? I've never heard such a thing. The only thing I can recall that ever had a problem running in a multiprocessor environment was Creative Labs products. Their drivers for some reason would cause random crashes all the time. Though this was about 4-5 years ago, I believe they have everything sorted now. Sure I do believe there might be some software/games that have issues running on a multicore system (which would include traditional dual cpu systems) but that's hardly the fault of the OS or hardware manufacturer. It's the people that made the software/game. Look at q4 for example, 2 patches now supposedly supporting mutlicore systems. People running both dualcore chips and traditional dual cpu machines report this patch does next to nothing. I don't see it as a hardware fault. There is plenty of software out and has been that takes advantage of mulitple cores.

To say all PC issues is "the user" is plain nonesense and I won't even bother to explain this silly gaff.

Strange I don't think I said all PC issues are user error, I said was from your posts I get the feeling that in this case it is though.

Second, it is indeed a hardware / software '"error" that disables multithread to run on my PC.

What error is this? Do you have a link? I don't know of anything that will shut off one of the cores. If you mean that both cores aren't always being used, well that's just the nature of the beast. If that's the case you should reevaluate why you need a dualcore system then. It's the same thing that applies to traditional dual cpu machines, not everyone needs them.

It is UNIQUE to dual core. The PC functions FINE without it, so "multi-thread" IS NOT transparent.

It's strange because XP is using the exact same HAL for dualcores as it does for traditional dual cpu systems, this is not the same? I'm pretty sure if dualcore had to be treated differently by the OS, MS would had to of released a whole new Service Pack to be compatible with dualcores. As you can see, this isn't the case.

And for the record I have an x2 4400+ with XP Pro. Never installed one patch regarding dualcores, either from AMD or MS. No problems. I've played q4, d3, HL2, q3 and use a couple different Adobe apps daily.

 

[Admiral_Cecil]

Haro,

Try the dual core Opteron (939) if the X2 doesn't quite live up to its benefits.

Opteron's wether single core or dual core can OC better, runs cooler, lwoer wattage, and comes in 1mb cache. They cost more than 4000+ or the X2 3800, but you are getting FX-calibur quality for less than FX.

 

[rower30]

I don't think XP Home is limited to single core, or any worse than XP pro with dual core CPU's. Pro has a multitude of LAN and security tools that XP home doesn't have, or really need. I run a 4 PC LAN on a simple HUB just fine.

"It includes all the great features and new visual design of Windows XP Home Edition, plus premier security and privacy features, advanced recovery options, improved ability to connect to large networks, and much more."

And, the Dave Letterman edition at;
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/top10.mspx

 

[rower30]

The original NT OS was designed and limited to certain approved software and drivers to avoid compatability issues with hardware. It was a pain, but it did avoid stability issues on servers, workstations, ETC. Oh it would run unapproved software, but it wouldn't be guaranteed to be fully compatible. This isn't saying it actually has anything to do with "dual core" per say, but the total included "system" of hardware and software. By default, this includes dual core. XP came from NT, so it had the dual core layer from the beginning. But, when you use unapproved drivers and software for home PC's in any manner of configurations, conflicts will arrise. Our IS depatment forbid anything that wasn't fully Microsoft NT approved on our systems, and they still don't.

There is obviously software needed to fully exploit dual core. Reportedly, to write dual core enabled software is more difficult, and the programs are bigger. This is the supposed reason why critical mass by software developers are a bit behind (pun untended).

"What error is this? Do you have a link? I don't know of anything that will shut off one of the cores." - I never said it shut anything on or off, it locks up the system with Hyperthreading enabled. Fine without it. If you disable Hyperthread in the BIOS, it effectively shuts off the second thread. I'd like to know if a method exists for the AMD X2 CPU's.

Micrsoft and AMD are releasing service packs to improve muti core CPU's. The X2 driver and the hotfix are indeed software intended to resolve software related conflicts. They exist, and are being addressed. Just because the hardware applications layer is the same is the REASON there are conflicts. It doesn't include some current hardware to software driver conflicts. Besides, XP came from NT, and the HAL has ALWAYS been dual core as a result. But, NT was stable ONLY with NT approved hardware drivers and software. XP users stick anything in there. Me included. What I stuck in there that kills hyperthread in Explorer and Outlok express...I don't know.

There will be a service pack that replaces the "hotfix" as soon as Microsoft feels that it fully addresses all of the known issues, and not just the few they could address as quickly as possible.

 

[rower30]

Chill out? Isn't that what Chevy said before everyone went Japanese in the early 1980's? We got no stinking problems. Seriously, I'm fine...and I'd be finer, but not chilly in Hawaii!

No one wants, or should, build a PC blind. Getting the right stuff is all too obvious to address in print, but harder in practice. If I can avoid issues up front, I will. I'm not so sure why I'd need to chill out for that. As gruff as a lot of you are here, you do know a lot more than any one person does at a time.

I appreciate all you comments, and yes, the users are small in number who has problems. My question was simple, If I am one of those few, what has been done to address the problem(s), and did it work? Why is that so terrible?

News group members can use me to impress their friends all they want with insults add nausea. That's fine. I can scrub it for information just the same. And, some of the stuff at least adds some color to sometimes boring stuff.

 

[rower30]

Pat,

The hardware is ordered. I'll give dual core a shot, and hope for the best. I have a question in to AMD if one proc can be disabled like hyperhthread. This way, I can just set it to single proc if it gets in other people's way.

So far still no takers on the second CPU device manager disabling? Come on you guys...insult me all you want but I need information!!

 

[joset]

Hello you all!

I took the time to go through all this 'maddening conversation' and - really - i think you already got the answer, here.

Anyway, this is my 'nobody-asked-you' opinion:

a. Deny this: Definitely, there's no issue with WinXP SP2, regarding [any kind of] multiprocessing;

b. Deny this: Actually, [any kind of] multiprocessing might be overkill for non-multithreaded games/applications; however, there's a very compelling advantage in a dual core set-up: simultaneous multitasking. And, it's certainly a secure bet, in the short term;

c. Deny this: Every hardware manufacturer/software programmer, is willing their products to be successful and to follow the actual [technological] trends... and, one of those, is multiprocessing. "Issues" always arise; that's for sure.

Hope this kind of reasoning helps. The conclusion shall be yours, of course.

Cheers!

 

[mpjesse]

[/quote]Can anyone with an AMD X2, any model will do, try this and report back? Disable the second CPU in your device manager and see if it works in applications that have issues?

I'd love to try and do that... but everything works fine. LOL. And I use a lot of different crap.

BTW, dunno if this was discussed or not- but ur gonna need to upgrade to WinXP Pro if u wanna use dual core. WinXP Home doesn't support more than 1 CPU.

-mpjesse

 

[mpjesse]

No. Really. WinXP Home doesn't support dual or multiple CPU's.

Google it.

EDIT: take a look at this well respected website. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

It's older, but they compare differences between Home and Pro.

Pro features that aren't in Home Edition
The following features are not present in Windows XP Home Edition.

Multi-processor support - Windows XP Pro supports up to two microprocessors, while Home Edition supports only one.

-mpjesse

 

[RichPLS]

I have 650GB of drive space, and programs loaded up the yen yang on my Opteron 175 system. Absolutely every program I run, lots of freeware, AutoCAD Land Development, Games, ecetera all run problem free and fast.
I never have to disable a core or even set processor affinity to run something.
Which programs are you hung up on, I will download it and run it too just fine...been doing dual chips since 1997, and it worked fine in NT4, 2000Pro and now on XPpro...

 

[Fox_granit]

Home only has a single processor support, Pro has upto 2 and then you will need to go to Windows Server after that. The next question will be, can Vista support more than 2 processors? With the manufacturers making dual cores, then quad cores and XP Pro not supporting more than 2, I hope that Vista will be able to handle quad cores when they come out in the next few years......

 

[bagg]

World of Warcraft does not stutter on my machine, nor have I had even the slightest problem at all with my Opteron 165. The problems you claim that are so commonplace, well, I haven't experienced them at all. Not a single one. Is it my luck? Nah, can't be that, I've built entirely too many machines that haven't exhibited these problems to call it luck. My GF (who is not a PC geek by any stretch of the imagination) loves her new X2 4400. On her machine I simply took out her A64 3500+ and dropped the X2 in.....no patches, no problems, nothing but excellent multitasking (which is something the single core AMD 64's have a problem with). I personally don't care whether you buy a dual core, single core, or whatever, but if you are afraid of all these supposed problems you haven't even experienced, why are you even posting here about it? It seems, since you are so sure they are problematic, why not just order the 4000+ and be done with it? You asked for opinions, well, my opinion is that regardless of what your friends at work tell you, an AMD dual core proc is simply a better-performing drop-in replacement for a single core.

 

[zeezee]

Okay, first off, if you're so damned paranoid, and (think that you) know so much, then why did you order it in the first place?

Fully agreed...

 

[function9]

For anyone else, go to MS's site and in the search field at the top type in "dual core". You'll get plenty of info and documents on where MS stands as far as licensing and what they consider a "processor". They consider a processor and cores as two different things. Home supports 1 processor, which can include n-cores. Pro supports up to 2 processors, again which include n-cores.
If you also pay attention to numerous docs they have regarding dualcore chips, you'll see XP Home listed as one of the effected OSes, that should tell you something. I know plenty of people running dual dualcore Opterons with plain old XP Pro w/SP2 just fine. If MS didn't allow multiple cores per socket in their license, they would have 2 very angry cpu manufacturers to deal with, I don't think that would be good business.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

I honestly think the real problem is one of the below:

- Has power supply unit problems making all these X2's unstable when their 2nd core is active and at load.

- Lacks the correct BIOS on the mainboards.

- Has (a large batch of ?) faulty and / or misconfigured hardware.

- Has installed the incorrect (or non at all) chipset drivers for these X2 systems. eg: nForce4 chipset drivers, or SiS drivers, or Via, etc. Even single core systems required drivers for their various chipsets but where less likely to have issues if a clueless person just installed Windows & Video drivers and assumed it would work. (and to some degree it would, but this is an area I would look at).

- Might have a undetected virus infection / similar issue causing the problems.

- Is incapable of isolating faults. Nothing specific was mentioned above only "it has issues" and "single core is more stable".... both of which are very vague, the second statement is totally false. (unless the machines are massively misconfigured or the office lacks enough juice to power all the 'new' PCs, etc).


FACTS:

The Windows NT 5.1 kernel supports up to 32 processors mate. Windows XP is based on this very kernel.

You do not need to set affinity to get something to work, playing with affinity is a damn good way to fuck 'some' software over. The Operating System (be it Windows, Linux, MacOS X, BSD, Unix / Solaris, etc) will manage the affinity and task scheduling of running processes for you.

The problems you are describing sound more like a home PC, Quake, other games, etc would not be used in an office environment. MSIE and Outlook work fine on a correctly configured PC (I am running them both now on a Opteron 270 - 4 core system without issues.)

Windows XP Home limits it to 1 CPU socket / 2 cores, Pro/x64 limits it to 2 CPUs / 4 cores. If you need support for more than 4 CPU cores (which it sounds like you don't) then move to Windows 2003 Server versions.

I suggest calming the hell down, and doing a little more reading on the subjects above. Shouldn't take anymore than 24 hours to solve, or at least find the cause of the issues.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

I'd like to know if a method exists for the AMD X2 CPU's...

OK, one of your problems is you do not disable CPUs, cores, virtual CPUs (HyperThreading or otherwise) using Device Manager, you just are not meant to do this. That is how it is. This is how Microsoft and 90%+ of users want it.

If BIOS is annoying you (and depends on BIOS, some will let you disable Dual-Core and/or HyperThreading, other BIOS on another mainboard won't, As you didn't specify what hardware your are running all the help above hasn't been so.... helpful, we can only make educated guesses)...

So you want to disable a CPU / core / X2 / HT, etc right, even if the BIOS does not support it, and have "certain applications" "just work" right ?

OK, try this:

Run MSCONFIG. (via, Start, Run, MSCONFIG, OK).

Go to the BOOT.INI tab, and click ADVANCED OPTIONS.

From there you can limit the number of processor cores the Windows OS can use (virtual or otherwise, eg: HyperThreading) then just reboot the system.

This is better than the BIOS method, as it can be done via a software release to work PCs (since you are so paranoid and it can be replicated to 1000's of PCs in minutes) and then just release to each machine via your software distribution system if at a workplace - (You do have one right ?).

You can search for each /<function> seen in MSCONFIG (and find even more) on the http://www.microsoft.com website for more information on each one. Heck you can even limit the memory if certain drivers are having issues with a high memory ceiling* - Also documented on MS website, unlikely an issue if the PCs do not have above 3 GB RAM.

The beauty of the above method is, if you truly need single core (vs affinty), then you can just do the above, then when all the issues are sorted put out a release to the "work PCs you mentioned" that enables the 2nd (or all) cores on the workstations.

Contact Info available from: http://users.on.net/~darkpeace


I find most PC issues (over 90%) are either:

- Dodgy designed software. (Doesn't follow the OS guidelines, lacked design forsight, etc).

- User based / Lack of training. (eg: Failing to be trained, knowledge isn't sinking in, etc).

- Management based. (eg: One poor decision, or poorly worded memo, etc from management, can reverse years of work within 24 hours). This usually occurs for managers that lack IT experience, which is quite common as the concept of management predates the concept of computing.

Make of my above posts as you will, hopefully something helpful for you in there.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

The CPU affinity isn't a fix because you have to reset the proc affiinity after every boot on a lot of apps. Some seem to keep their affinity. That's garbage main stream computing in my book. I used to use hyperthreading except it didn't work with IE6 or outlook Express.

Exactly what problems are you getting with HyperThreading enabled using MSIE 6 and Outlook (Express) ? (and other apps ?).

It sure helps being prepared with the exact error messages and/or associated problems with full descriptions on how to recreate the problem.

If CPU affinity is being a pain for you (no idea why, likely paranoid affinity setting) just download TomsHardware good old CPU affinity program, you set affinity once for an application, and it remembers it. It has only been around well.... over 12 months, quite likely more.

Not as old as the Abit BP6 mainboard (Dual CPU Celeron/MMX core, years old now), but budget users have been using dual CPUs/cores for years, and yet only you seam to have "all these undocumented problems". (eg: what exactly happens when using MSIE / Outlook on your P4 systems with HT enabled ?).

Plenty of people here who are ready and willing to help, but we need information first, not just "it doesn't work rants" or "speculation that it wont work before even trying".

 

[glidingsmoothly]

I play WOW rower30 and it doesnt stutter on my x2. Anyway if you don't feel comfortable with an x2 get a single core amd 64 3800 or 4000 it's still gonna be a good system.

 

[mdd1963]

"I doubt that XP will be made to run dual core, "

Ooops...It has been since it's inception...., as has Windows 2000, and Windows NT 4.0....; this is not Wndows 98.

 

[mdd1963]

"WinXP Home doesn't support dual or multiple CPU's."

It supports a single "physical" processor socket/slot, but multiple cores.

 

[Fox_granit]

OK XP home doesn't treat dual cores and hyper-threading the same way that xp pro does. If you look at hardware manager, it will only show a single core. Now due to the functioning of the hyperthreading and the dualcores, it will run a single program on a single core, but its not as fast becuase the programing inside windows xp home doesn't allow the spliting of the threads. In windows xp pro and server, it can actually split the threads of a single program before it hits the processors, making it that much faster by pushing one half a program on each side. I'm not saying Home can't use the hyperthreading or dualcores, it just will not use the dual core to its full potential, and or may bring out bugs in progams running on home.

 

[dwave]

You also have to look when HT and dual cores came out. HT started in 2002, but windows xp came out in 2001, and dual cores last year. Here is the problem, in XP pro with HT enabled, it shows 2 seperate cpu's in the task manager, even though only one is present, and the same goes with 2 cores also. So I believe that since we didn't have these technologies when XP came out, the OS believes that their are physically two seperate CPU's inside the machine and so XP home would not use the second core. Just my thoughts on the matter.

EDIT: since posting this I have done some reading and it looks like you need SP2 for dual cores to work on XP home.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

When HT first came out, there was a patch needed for WinXP. (I don't think M$ ever even released it for Win2K.) This patch wasn't even needed to make XP run with HT because XP can handle two procs. It was needed because HT is technically one processor pretending to be two and XP wasn't treating a HT proc any different from two procs. So the patch improved XP's scheduling on a HT processor (because it's not two actual procs, there are some better ways to distribute tasks for it than just an equal split), to use the HALT command to help prevent HT procs from sitting around doing nothing when idle, and to use the YIELD command to avoid spinlock contention. Oh, and the patch convinced XP (home and pro) that HT procs were only one proc for licensing use. (Because XP Home specifically wouldn't let it run with HT until it thought of it as only one proc for licensing.) And thus HT worked on WinXP just peachy keen ever since.

Likewise, XP probably needs the new dualcore patch to convince XP that a dualcore proc is still only one proc for licensing. (Though maybe not. Handling multiple logical procs in one physical proc might have all been worked out with the HT patch.)

But still, these things are worked out now. To the Windows scheduler (and to any software apps running) dualcore is no different than two individual CPUs, and that's worked fine in Windows since, what, NT3? So any problems that exist with dualcore are the fault of 3rd party software developers, such as drivers, or apps. There's nothing there to fix in Windows anymore. (At least as far as I know.) And any such problems existing in 3rd party software would exhibit themselves the same on a two-CPU system, a HT-CPU, or a dualcore-CPU.

Are there some softwares that have problems with multiple logical or physical CPUs? Sure. Usually the problems arise when the software developers code specifically at a very low level to use CPU0 but the scheduler throws a task onto CPU1, and suddenly parts of the code are trying to access the wrong processor. My company has struggled with some drivers that were written in Assembly code to do that. But these kinds of problems are extremely rare, as almost no one codes on such a low level anymore. And simply setting the affinity to CPU0 will solve the problem. Patches that remove this kind of bad coding also fix the problem. But because these problems are in the 3rd party software, they have to be fixed in the 3rd party software. There's no global fix that M$ can provide to fix people's bad code. (Which was pretty well proven when M$ fixed the memory scheduler in the NT5 kernel to reuse freed memory before using new memory memory, thereby causing all sorts of hell with programs that were coded badly to free a memory location but keep on using it anyway.)