Q: For the two XP, with XP Pro to wander at least four.
How many cores can handle Vista varieties deal?
Once the Q6600 drops in price, I go to a Q6600 setup to add to) my (Folding mike9os fleet and to the right version of Vista ready.
Thanks for your help!
Re:I wonder when CPUs will adopt the current GPU design model – very "wide" architectures, with "superthreading". Imagine Hyperthreading, with say, 16 threads, and a whole bunch of excution and load-store units that could be utilized dynamically by any given thread. IOW, pool execution resources together, and then have a thread-scheduler that dynamically allocates those resources. It would certainly blur the concept of individual cores quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing gets adopted, if and when they merge CPUs and GPUs. It could also give the benefit of a "wider" CPU core to single- or lesser-threaded apps, much like Conroe's secret "core multiplexing" feature, that allegedly allows for a single CPU thread with double the execution resources available to it.
Re:Sorry, I meant 16 cores via 8x not 16×1 (realize thats not too clear in the post).
Ah, yea I figured you meant 16×1. Not that I expect them to be here too soon but they'd obviously show up before the 32×1 models. =)
Re:Originally posted by: guy
And you could always get 2 16-core CPUs if you use XP Pro or whatever version of Vista supports SMP machines.
Sorry, I meant 16 cores via 8x not 16×1 (realize thats not too clear in the post).
Re:And you could always get 2 16-core CPUs if you use XP Pro or whatever version of Vista supports SMP machines.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Wake me up when Intel is selling 32-core desktop cpus. I want to do some scheduler benchmarking.
We will be jumping to 16 cores first, but that is still a few years out mainstream.
Re:Wake me up when Intel is selling 32-core desktop cpus. I want to do some scheduler benchmarking.
Re:Optimist.
Well I don't know how well the NT scheduler actually scales but MS' documentation says that's what's supported. And if they switched away from using an int to hold the CPU bitmask in Vista it may be higher now, the page I saw was for XP.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Everything up to 32 or 64 cores will be fine depending on which version of Vista you've got.
Optimist.
Re:So a quad core will run fine under Vista Basic. Thanks!
Everything up to 32 or 64 cores will be fine depending on which version of Vista you've got.
Re:So a quad core will run fine under Vista Basic. Thanks!
Re:Which, sadly, means that XP Home doesn't really run well on those old SMP P3 VP6 mobos.
It'll run just fine, although you only get to use one of the CPUs.
My friend found that out the hard way after transferring an OS install over and installing that old mobo.
Guess he should have looked at the limitations of the OS more carefully, it's not like this is a recent change or something.
Re:Which, sadly, means that XP Home doesn't really run well on those old SMP P3 VP6 mobos. My friend found that out the hard way after transferring an OS install over and installing that old mobo.
Re:As Nothingman notes, all Microsoft OSes are licensed based on PHYSICAL CPU sockets filled, not on cores.
Re:I believe the amount of cores is currently unlimited, it's the number of sockets that MS has artificially limited. It seems that XP (not sure about Vista) is limited to 32 and 64 cores in the 32-bit and 64-bit versions respectively though.
http://www.microsoft.com/licen…hlights/multicore.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx)
0 Comments.