Hardware Analysis - Processors - XP and Vista

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Gerritt — 2008-07-09T00:27:19-05:00

Jules,
You're hurting me.
Multitasking or at least process sharing has been around in the MS OS world since at least WINNT4.
Now you are asking if XP or Vista support this!!!!
Both are multi-threaded, multi-tasking OSs.
If you run a program that is not multi-threaded or multi-tasking, the OS still assigns it to a specific core, based upon the OS provided parameters, or your own. You can force an application to a particular core, or you can allow the OS or application to choose its own affinity.
Will a quad core processor run your single threaded process better...It depends on how it is written. The fact that the OS is running all of IT's processes on seperate cores, would free up more core processing for your app, no matter whether it is multi-threaded or not.
Having said that; Do you get enough of a throughput increase on a quad to override the higher core speeds on the duals? As of now, probably not, due to the higher speed and the minimal utilization of multi-processing in the present applications, but this is changing every day.

Gerritt

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Jules — 2008-07-08T10:57:32-05:00

OK, now here's the next question:
Given that XP SP2 can multithread and use a dual core processor, can it multitask?
I thought that the reason that Vista was delayed in its release was that the engineers were perfecting the multitasking capability of Vista when it was using a dual core processor.
Comments please.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Jules — 2008-07-08T10:01:04-05:00

That's actually because the first number is the stock or default clockspeed. The second number is the actual real time clockspeed.

Hey - just the answer I was looking for - thanks Adam for the info.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

john albrich — 2008-07-06T20:19:22-05:00

Tam the Bam said:

Dublin Gunner Said:

Its not whether the CPU will work - it certainly should, but whether the OS will recognise more than 1 core, and utilise it is the question.
And XP before SP2 did not

Ah right, ok fair play. I didn't have a dual core cpu until after SP2 was released anyways, so i didn't or wouldn't have known. But, for anyone to have XP still and not have SP2 is pretty much impossible....

I'm still running into people who install basic WinXP and WinXP SP1 CDs, and run into various problems until they're finally told to upgrade to SP2. I think it seems to happen most often when their fully updated SP2 or SP3 equivalent system tanks, and they then have to re-install. The other scenario has been they upgrade their CPU, but still just try to install using their old pre-SP1 or SP1 install CD without any slip-streaming of later SPs. It's unfortunate they don't understand the situation, but it's still going on.

edit to add-Oh, and as Dublin said up above, they also have to be told to check if they need to uplift their mobo BIOS. I think this tends to happen more on pre-assembled older systems like HPs, Gateways, and Dells, but have no data to back that up.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Adam Kolak — 2008-07-06T20:13:37-05:00

Jules said:

So why does Vista have two numbers for a Processor frequency eg 2.4GHz and 2.39GHz
And XP (pro) lists one number eg 2.4GHz.

That's actually because the first number is the stock or default clockspeed. The second number is the actual real time clockspeed.

Here's mine in Vista. The first number shows the stock clockspeed of 2.13Ghz. The second number reads 3.2Ghz because my CPU is overclocked. On a non overclocked system this speed could be the same as stock or even slightly less.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/waterdrop006/sp1properties.jpg

However in XP, only the actual clockspeed is shown. The default/stock clockspeed is not shown in XP like it is in Vista. Here is what my brother's Althon 64 3000+ shows in XP. It's stock at 1.8Ghz, but overclocked to 2.4Ghz. It shows 2.4Ghz since that is the actual realtime clockspeed.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/waterdrop006/random/a64.jpg

So to answer your question, Vista is not showing the speeds of two different cores, its simply showing the expected/default/stock clockspeed and then the actual clockspeed. If your seeing 2.4Ghz 2.39Ghz in Vista's Properties window that means your 2.4Ghz CPU is running at 2.39Ghz.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Tam the Bam — 2008-07-06T20:11:34-05:00

Dublin Gunner Said:

Its not whether the CPU will work - it certainly should, but whether the OS will recognise more than 1 core, and utilise it is the question.

And XP before SP2 did not

Ah right, ok fair play. I didn't have a dual core cpu until after SP2 was released
anyways, so i didn't or wouldn't have known.
But, for anyone to have XP still and not have SP2 is pretty much impossible.
But yea, point granted.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

DublinGunner — 2008-07-06T20:00:27-05:00

Tam the Bam said:

I just read this thread. Of course XP can run dual cores & quad cores.
I have used both amd/intel dual/quad cores on xp.No probs at all.
Any processor albiet single/multi core will run on XP. Why shoudn't it?

Its not whether the CPU will work - it certainly should, but whether the OS will recognise more than 1 core, and utilise it is the question.

And XP before SP2 did not

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Tam the Bam — 2008-07-05T10:58:50-05:00

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Kieran Blenkarne — 2008-07-05T06:09:22-05:00

Jules said:

So why does Vista have two numbers for a Processor frequency eg 2.4GHz and 2.39GHz
And XP (pro) lists one number eg 2.4GHz.

Vista was finished and executed after dual core CPU's were on the market, so it is just how the software was written to show the user the system's CPU. It is nothing significant what so ever. I am sure someone could edit XP to do the exact same thing.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Gerritt — 2008-07-05T05:01:53-05:00

Jules,
This is not Vista specific, but how your system is configured and opperating.
If you see this in CPU-z or in task manager, this is just the differential in how they are being reported, not utilized. The 10% difference is just in the reporting, and how the report is generated, not associated with the actual throughput of the individual cores.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Jules — 2008-07-05T03:45:47-05:00

So why does Vista have two numbers for a Processor frequency eg 2.4GHz and 2.39GHz
And XP (pro) lists one number eg 2.4GHz.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Meats_Of_Evil — 2008-07-04T07:01:49-05:00

Windows XP Home Edition supports up to 32 cpu cores, I'm using a Quad cpu and it works fine. Now I think you need the Pro edition if you're planning to use with Dual cpu's which are different from dual core cpu's which is only on processor with two cores in it.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

FordGT90Concept — 2008-07-04T05:29:26-05:00

Some Pentium 4 processors have one physical core (Northwood or Prescott) and one virtual core (Hyper Threading). Windows XP/Vista only sees the physical core, the virtual core is mostly disabled (via the BIOS). Hyper Threading is often abbreviated "HT" in the BIOS. It may take a BIOS update to make the Hyper Threading options available.

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

Jules — 2008-07-04T05:15:58-05:00

Hi Guys
My questions are 'general' ones. (Not a specific problem - just educating myself)
I thought that Dual cores listed the GHz of both cores eg 2.40GHz 2.39GHz when I looked at a Dual core machine.
But I may be mistaken, because when I look at the report on a single core processor with Vista it reports 'Intel(R) Pentium(r)4 CPU 3.00GHz 3.01GHz

But in XP SP3 the same machine reports Intel pentium 4 processor 3.00 GHz
(This machine has two Hard disks with different operating systems)

Re: Processors - XP and Vista

john albrich — 2008-07-03T15:54:18-05:00

Jim H said:

I'm not sure on this but didn't early (pre SP1) versions of XP home not support multicore chips? But then they unlocked them to a maximum of two cores (logical or physical) once the whole hyperthreading and mulitcore thing got started.? I thought I remember reading that somewhere...

I think you're right about versions up to and including SP1 not providing multi-core support. However, with the correct and updated drivers, XP (all versions) will support a quad-core processor as far as I know.