I know that WinXP Pro is needed for multiprocessor support, but what about dual core? Is XP Pro required for dual core processors (e.g. AMD Athlon 64 X2) or will XP Home support both cores?
>I know that WinXP Pro is needed for multiprocessor support, but what > about dual core? > Is XP Pro required for dual core processors (e.g. AMD Athlon 64 X2) or > will XP Home > support both cores?
which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope that is the case!
> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. > Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, > I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope > that is the case!
Tony Linguini wrote: > My interpretation is physical processors, not what's inside them > Tony > <win...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1137257799.099988.136320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Thanks. That link was somewhat unclear, but I found another Microsoft >> link
>> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. >> Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, >> I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope >> that is the case!
>> W
dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate CPU's - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home isnt. You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always charged for SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the more you pay. so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more cpu(s) Eric
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:15:13 -0800, Eric <nos...@email.com> wrote: >Tony Linguini wrote:
>> My interpretation is physical processors, not what's inside them >> Tony >> <win...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1137257799.099988.136320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> Thanks. That link was somewhat unclear, but I found another Microsoft >>> link
>>> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. >>> Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, >>> I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope >>> that is the case!
>>> W
>dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate CPU's >- in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home isnt. >You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always charged for >SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the more you pay. >so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or >possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more >cpu(s) >Eric
XP Pro will show four "processors" with either two single-core HT Xeons or two dual-core non-HT Xeons, and allocate tasks to all of them.
No idea what XP Pro will do with two dual-core HT Xeons. Yet.
/daytripper (Yeah, I heat my house with these things ;-)
> dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate CPU's > - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home isnt. > You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always charged for > SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the more you pay.
That's BS. MS clearly said that they are counting physical CPU sockets, not logical cpus or cores. XP Home uses the same kernel as XP Pro but with the limitation to support only one physical cpu socket but it still supports dual cores and hyperthreading. Being based on the same kernel, XP Home is as much SMP as XP Pro...
> so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or > possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more > cpu(s)
XP Pro supports two physical sockets which means it shows 4 cpus when running two dual cores or two HT processors, or showing 8 cpus when running two dual cores with HT...
Eric wrote: > dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate CPU's > - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home isnt. > You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always charged for > SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the more you pay. > so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or > possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more > cpu(s) > Eric
XP Home will support multiprocessing in the form of dual-cores or Hyperthreading. It just won't support it in the form of dual processors. It's an artificial distinction implemented by Microsoft, but the Windows kernel can distinguish between the different forms and allows those specific cases to work on XP Home.
> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. > Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, > I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope > that is the case!
I have XP Home and dual core PD 830. It works fine and both cores are working. In fact, it works much better than I expected it to.
>> dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate >> CPU's - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home >> isnt. You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always >> charged for SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the >> more you pay.
> That's BS. MS clearly said that they are counting physical CPU sockets, > not logical cpus or cores. XP Home uses the same kernel as XP Pro but > with the limitation to support only one physical cpu socket but it still > supports dual cores and hyperthreading. Being based on the same kernel, > XP Home is as much SMP as XP Pro...
>> so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or >> possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more >> cpu(s)
> XP Pro supports two physical sockets which means it shows 4 cpus when > running two dual cores or two HT processors, or showing 8 cpus when > running two dual cores with HT...
>> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. >> Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, >> I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope >> that is the case!
> I have XP Home and dual core PD 830. It works fine and both cores are > working. In fact, it works much better than I expected it to.
>>>dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate >>>CPU's - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home >>>isnt. You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always >>>charged for SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the >>>more you pay.
>>That's BS. MS clearly said that they are counting physical CPU sockets, >>not logical cpus or cores. XP Home uses the same kernel as XP Pro but >>with the limitation to support only one physical cpu socket but it still >>supports dual cores and hyperthreading. Being based on the same kernel, >>XP Home is as much SMP as XP Pro...
>>>so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or >>>possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more >>>cpu(s)
>>XP Pro supports two physical sockets which means it shows 4 cpus when >>running two dual cores or two HT processors, or showing 8 cpus when >>running two dual cores with HT...
Reread the original link, when MS says "processor" they mean socket. Count ZIF sockets on the board, if you stop at one it's supported.
I am told that XP Pro will support dual dual-core HT Xeons (as eight CPUs). Have no idea if that's the case, but XP Home seems to work with the dual core "EE" (HT enabled) CPU.
>>> dont hold your breath, MS doesnt care if its HT, Dual Core or separate >>> CPU's - in all cases they would be implementing an SMP OS which XP Home >>> isnt. You'll need XP Pro - or Linux (no charge here). MS has always >>> charged for SMP and the more CPU's (cores sockets or HT - dont care) the >>> more you pay. >> That's BS. MS clearly said that they are counting physical CPU sockets, >> not logical cpus or cores. XP Home uses the same kernel as XP Pro but >> with the limitation to support only one physical cpu socket but it still >> supports dual cores and hyperthreading. Being based on the same kernel, >> XP Home is as much SMP as XP Pro...
>>> so you pay for initial SMP by buying XP Pro, thats good for 2 cpu's (or >>> possibly 2 HT cpu's) i think, after that its an upgrade fee(s) for more >>> cpu(s) >> XP Pro supports two physical sockets which means it shows 4 cpus when >> running two dual cores or two HT processors, or showing 8 cpus when >> running two dual cores with HT...
That's right, XP Home does not support multiple *processors*. Microsoft defines a processor as a module that plugs into a socket. That processor can be dual-core, multithreaded, or both, and XP Home will still support it. Page 3 of the .DOC file posted by win...@yahoo.com clearly states this.
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/1/e/f1ecd771-cf97-4d98-9a1b-... >>> which seems to imply that XP Home supports mulitcore processors. >>> Since HP offers mulitcore PCs without specing that XP Pro is necessary, >>> I assume that XP Home will support multicore processors....I just hope >>> that is the case!
>> I have XP Home and dual core PD 830. It works fine and both cores are >> working. In fact, it works much better than I expected it to.
It is pretty easy to tell. Look at task manager. Fire up one job, the CPU goes to 50%. Fire up another it goes to 100%. You can also see the usage per processor (each processor counts as 50%). Also, I can run two jobs without any loss of performance. (Try that with a single core.) My 5 hours+ regression tests on 2.4G P4 run in 2 hours on a 3.0G PD. Sounds to me like both cores are working. Note: that is only after I broke them into two groups to be run in parallel. Otherwise it would have taken 4 hours because only one CPU would be used.
For everyday tasks, one big improvement is the lack of system slowdown when something CPU intensive starts up. You barely even know it is running. Of course, when two CPU intensive jobs are running and try to start a third, then you can tell. (I set my regressions to run at "BelowNormal" priority to keep the machine responsive even with heavy CPU load).
