Dual Core CPU's

[CaribbeanPirate]

Look windows XP & 2003 natively support dual core CPU's (both AMD and Intel), but you will need to install the OS after you stick in the dual core CPU (not just upgrade the CPU on an existing installation).

Do not confuse the earlier total tulipe Intel Hyperthreading (spit) with dual core. Dual core is exactly that, 2 cpus in one package.

2 CPUs means twice the throughput when running multiple processes at the same time (e.g play a game and run virus scan at the same time) or running SQL Server and IIS on the same box etc.

It works on Windows perfectly. I know I have several dual core boxes. They absolutely fly.

That's what I wanted to know. thanks DP.

We are going to need a new server in a couple of months. I'll get the boy to look into spec'ing the parts. Then we'll have to arrange the smuggling in of the parts. It’s very doubtful if they are already available on the island and if they were they would be twice the amount in the US. If we mail order we get hit with 20% import tax. We need bits all the time so whenever one of us is up in the US or I’m coming back from the UK we slip ticks of memory or HD, etc in with the undies.

 

[AtW]

The quad cores are never going to be cheap or destined for the desktop motherboards due to the fact that only the server (Windows) OS'es support more than 2 CPU's.

Microsoft's policy is that CPU is CPU, it should not be counted by number of cores.

"Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor."

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

Also (AFAIK) quad core CPU from Intel is pin compatible with Core 2 Duo mobos: that's the whole point of having multiple versions of same baseline architecture.

 

[DimPrawn]

AtW is correct regarding the use of multicore CPUs in Windows XP in terms of licensing, however I'm sure that Windows XP cannot recognise more than two cores due to limitation in the HAL.

I might be wrong though.

 

[Ardesco]

2 CPUs means twice the throughput when running multiple processes at the same time (e.g play a game and run virus scan at the same time) or running SQL Server and IIS on the same box etc.

I think we are in agreement Mr Prawn, just coming at it from different angles, what i'm attempting to say is that you get twice the throughput with multiple processes but you will not get an increase in performance with a single process unless that process is specifically designed for multiple processor support.

 

[AtW]

I'm sure that Windows XP cannot recognise more than two cores due to limitation in the HAL.

I believe they planned or even did patch that, but Vista should definately be smart about this issue - I won't upgrade to it for sometime, but quad cores will only go mainstream later next year.

By the way don't always expect double performance from dual cores - I had one case when I was running two sorting threads on very fragmented data set (sized in hundreds of megabytes each), and it was barely delivering more than single CPU because memory must have been thrushed.

 

[Ardesco]

I had one case when I was running two sorting threads on very fragmented data set (sized in hundreds of megabytes each), and it was barely delivering more than single CPU because memory must have been thrushed.

Your memory had a yeast infection

 

[Mailman]

The quad cores are never going to be cheap or destined for the desktop motherboards due to the fact that only the server (Windows) OS'es support more than 2 CPU's.

Therefore any quad core CPU will be expensive, use a server motherboard socket and require a server OS.

The board Im getting also supports quad core CPU's. Not bad for thirty odd squids.

But anyway, I need a quad core CPU for the very same reason I need a dual core CPU...to do what ever it is I do (surf porn ).

BTW, anyone remember those dual CPU motherboards from the mid 90's? The size of two rugby fields if I remember rightly

Regards

Mailman

 

[Mailman]

Hows this for service, I ordered the parts last night at around 520pm AND they were delivered this morning at 1030am (and that was after I DIDNT select next day delivery).

Regards

Mailman

 

[mcquiggd]

I have an overclocked, Intel Core Duo E6600.... it's considerably faster doing just about everything. I run windows XP 64 bit on it, with a SATA II Raid Array and decent memory - youll find the multitasking bottleneck is not the CPU, it will be hard disk access. SATA Raid or SCSI and you have a professional workstation, not just a PC.

My work machine is just a dog by comparison (Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz).

The other dual core is running Windows 2003 Enterprise, and its noticebaly quicker running SQL Server 2005 and Team Foundation Server.

It might seem like overkill, but when the stuff is this cheap nowadays, why not get the best.

The GIGABYTE GA-965P-DQ6 is quad core ready, so ill just wait until the price drops on those and pick a midrange one, and overclock it.

The E6600 is currently probably the best to go for - its the cheapest with the full 4 meg cache, and it can overclock to outperform cpus from Intel and AMD that cost 3 times as much.

My advice - spend money on the motherboard, then memory, then hard disk raid, then cpu. Processors get cheaper quicker, and you simply upgrade (until the buggers change the socket type).

 

[mcquiggd]

Hows this for service, I ordered the parts last night at around 520pm AND they were delivered this morning at 1030am (and that was after I DIDNT select next day delivery).

Regards

Mailman

Dabs will ship orders at up to 7.45pm...