• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

24 cores and XP Pro?

F

Fineghal

Member
So one of my friends is planning to build a full server for his college rig. 12 processor slots 12 gigs of ram etc. And he's planning to use it as a normal workstation. I was talking to him about it, and we both agreed he should probably put linux on it; however he may need XP to play nice with some of the other devices and comps on the campus network.

So here's my question: How is XP Pro going to react in the presence of 24 cores?

I had thought that XP recognized max 2 cores...
And yes, we realize it would have to be licensed based on the number of processor slots. Putting in 12 serials. Ewww.

And I also know he could use vmware/WINE etc. but I got seriously curious as to what would happen. Visions of the Windows Task Manager with 24 Proc. graphs. Wow...
 
Well, XP recognizes my four (dual Xeons with HT), so I atleast know there isn't 2 max. Licenses based on processor slots?? It's per Windows installation, and that single installation should recognize all of the cores (if it can, obviously).
 
It's based on the version of XP. Home only does 1CPU, Pro 2CPU, and other versions of XP scale up to more.

As for your friend, what is the server doing that requires 12 CPUs and 12gigs of ram? And how is he going to use it as a normal workstation?

The ram part is easy, but where are you going to get a board with 12 CPU slots? If you guys don't even know enough to know that different versions of XP supports different amounts of CPUs, where are you going to get such a board?
 
Also, doesn't XP have a max memory capacity of 4GB? You are going to have to get Server 2003 for this setup, one way or another, IIRC.
 
If its college dorm, not only will you not have enough power to supply it, his rooommate definitely will complain and get that stuff kick out..

the only thing you can get with at least 12 is quad core, quad socket and use 3 socket out of 4.

Heres you board
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813151009

Of course it wont support quad core yet.. best you can do is 8 cores right now

Unless college is 2 years away.. its still pipe dream
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article37.html

There are probably 8 socket solution using dual cores but solutions like that cost more than his college education.
 
I must say your friend would do better to spend the money on hicking equipment as he seems to have very little clue about hardware. Every workstation or server must be built with a purpose, the applications which is to be run must decide what kind of machine (or machines) is to be built.

What does he plan to use this very machine for?
 
meh, atleast with the process viewer and setting core affinity there are selections for many more than 2 cores
 
First of all, that is a very stupid idea. Unless he's near deaf already, that rig will have to be off at night (which defeats the purpose of a server); it will also serve a secondary purpose of making him deaf if he isn't yet.

XP is licensed per socket, which means that XP Home supports 1 socket with however many cores can fit; XP Pro supports 2 sockets. He'll need something like Windows Enterprise Server to support his rig. If he has any intentions of running Vista with the nice GUI on that system with full support of all his CPUs, he'll need to think again - Vista will support 2 sockets maximum, and Longhorn Server won't have the nice GUI or other desktop-oriented features.

In terms of logistics of fitting 24 cores in one system, it will be impossible to build anything like that today with parts from Newegg. The most advanced Opteron motherboards have 8 sockets, which can support 2 cores each, for a maximum of 16 cores. Bear in mind that no desktop application except for rare scientific or other analysis apps use anywhere near that many threads, so all but at most 4 cores are going to be wasted. Besides, if he is going to run a server that will need much more than the power of a single Pentium II 400MHz to keep up with requests, his college is going to be talking to him in short order about his network access - specifically, why he'll never be getting it turned on again.
 
dear GOD wts do you need 24 cores for ?
unless your doing some major major web hosting, scientific research i doubt anyone wants that much power. not to mention the cost.

i suppose your freind think it will get him more fps in oblivion ?

 
op's friends e-penis = |-| hahaha

it is like saying i want to build a car with 1000HP but i don't know how to drive....op's friend is a fool
 
THe license is per socket. XP home supports a single socket. If you had a quad core with HT, it would see and use all 8 "cores", but if you had proccessors in 2 physical sockets, XP home would only support one of them. XP pro supports 2 physical sockets. You would basicly need 2 cpu's with 12 cores each for XP pro to recognize 24 cores. You are going to need server 2003 for that many cores, and it's not gonna be cheap, but then 24 cores wont' be cheap either.
 
would be ideal for XP-64, since I doubt that 24 cores can run on a maximum of 4GB and still have effective computing available for the tasks intended to run on the 24 cores.

we're talking about entry level super computers when it comes to more than 16 cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top