Anyone running SMP with Win2K. I'm curious about how efficient this setup is. In other words I'm wondering, if I have two 1GHz processors installed what real-world peformance level will I get, 2GHz, 1.9, 1.8, 1.7, 1.6, etc? So which would be better, a P4 1.5 or dual P3s?
How Efficient is Win2K in SMP? P4 vs. Dual P3s in W2K?
- Thread starter Octoberblue
- Start date
In real world experience a dual 1GHz will result in about a 1.6 - 1.7 GHz CPU... provided the applications you intend to run are multi-threaded (i.e. dual-processor enabled), if they're not you're better off with a single 1.5 GHz processor, although I would still go with a dual-processor motherboard - that way you can simply drop in another processor should you switch to an application that'll support it.
Oh, I didn't realize the apps themselves had to be dual-processor enabled. Just thought W2K managed all that. No wonder more people aren't going with dual cpus.
I have an SMP box sitting here that used to run Win2k [till it became my "try out linux" machine]. It is currently a dual P3-600 - I also have a p3-600 box that I normally use. The systems are identical in hd, ram, cd, everything except the mobo & processors:
SMP owns a single processor any day. Single or multi-threaded, SMP is still great. Just think about playing Counter-Strike with 100% of a p3-600 instead of a p3-600 with 15 other services running on it, with CS running on top of all those. Also, normal day to day usage is *much* smoother. Everything seems to hum along without any slowdowns, ever. It's sweet.
About multi-threaded apps: it smokes. I have a multi-threaded web server [sambar], and it is amazingly fast; a single processor couldn't compete because it is bogged down by normal system tasks.
Personally, I would take a dual p3-600 over a p3 1GHz. I'm not a hardcore gamer; if you play tons of games that are not multi-threaded, then a single higher MHz box will be desirable. Otherwise,
SMP IS WHERE IT'S AT, ALWAYS!
randal
SMP owns a single processor any day. Single or multi-threaded, SMP is still great. Just think about playing Counter-Strike with 100% of a p3-600 instead of a p3-600 with 15 other services running on it, with CS running on top of all those. Also, normal day to day usage is *much* smoother. Everything seems to hum along without any slowdowns, ever. It's sweet.
About multi-threaded apps: it smokes. I have a multi-threaded web server [sambar], and it is amazingly fast; a single processor couldn't compete because it is bogged down by normal system tasks.
Personally, I would take a dual p3-600 over a p3 1GHz. I'm not a hardcore gamer; if you play tons of games that are not multi-threaded, then a single higher MHz box will be desirable. Otherwise,
SMP IS WHERE IT'S AT, ALWAYS!
randal
As much as the marketers like to have you believe, a single processor system still can't multitask.
IMO SMP isnt worth it for the avarge user.
You wont get any better framerates in Counter Strike with a second CPU unless you have system services that actually eat CPU resources, and none of the default services do, they pretty much just sit there and alltogether maybe use up 1% of a 1GHz P3's resources.
As for apps, there are pretty few apps that the avarge user is likely to use that support SMP, and AFAIK there's only one game engine that supports SMP, the Q3 engine, and even there, it doesnt do a whole lot once you reach speeds above 600 MHz.
If you're running a pro 3D workstation, a server, or something of that nature, its a completely different matter though.
And there's no denying that if you do alot of multitasking a SMP system will indeed be more responsive.
Anyway, will you be buying this system or are you getting it for free and get to choose?
If you're buying it, go with a uni processor system, either a P3 or Thunderbird, rather than any of those, and place the money saved on other things such as more memory, nicer GFX card etc.
You wont get any better framerates in Counter Strike with a second CPU unless you have system services that actually eat CPU resources, and none of the default services do, they pretty much just sit there and alltogether maybe use up 1% of a 1GHz P3's resources.
As for apps, there are pretty few apps that the avarge user is likely to use that support SMP, and AFAIK there's only one game engine that supports SMP, the Q3 engine, and even there, it doesnt do a whole lot once you reach speeds above 600 MHz.
If you're running a pro 3D workstation, a server, or something of that nature, its a completely different matter though.
And there's no denying that if you do alot of multitasking a SMP system will indeed be more responsive.
Anyway, will you be buying this system or are you getting it for free and get to choose?
If you're buying it, go with a uni processor system, either a P3 or Thunderbird, rather than any of those, and place the money saved on other things such as more memory, nicer GFX card etc.
SUOrangeman
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 1999
- 8,361
- 0
- 0
<< Oh, I didn't realize the apps themselves had to be dual-processor enabled. Just thought W2K managed all that. No wonder more people aren't going with dual cpus. >>
Well it does for a single application to actually use both CPUs....but as soon as you are running two applications the speed of the SMP machine will skyrocket....even with Win2000 only one app can run at a time on a single CPU. Windows will switch between apps quickly so it appears that more than one is running at once, but in fact only one app has the CPU at a time. If you have two CPUs two apps run at the same time. Things get done much faster. The only thing that dual CPUs really don't benefit is gaming, even then dual is faster than a single, just not alot faster. Anything else the Dual CPUs will smoke the single one.
Noriaki, true in theory, but in reality, how many non game, and on pro applications really need alot of CPU?
I dont know about you, but when I use Opera, Office, Netscape etc etc the CPU never gets above 5% aside from the occasional peak.
And in case someone brings up the "Have you ever use a SMP system?", yes I have, and plenty.
And IMO a faster disk system, more RAM, or a faster single CPU all bring more benefit to 95% of the stuff most people are likely do to with their computers.
I dont know about you, but when I use Opera, Office, Netscape etc etc the CPU never gets above 5% aside from the occasional peak.
And in case someone brings up the "Have you ever use a SMP system?", yes I have, and plenty.
And IMO a faster disk system, more RAM, or a faster single CPU all bring more benefit to 95% of the stuff most people are likely do to with their computers.
I agree with kohutek. Just having 2 CPUs makes the whole system faster. If you can afford it, go for it. Sure it costs a little more for the extra processor but on a whole, it's worth it.
I don't really know what the definition of an "SMP enabled app" is. To the best of my knowledge, there is no SMP specific API for Win32 (I may be wrong). I guess it is just how the app is developed to specifically distribute high usage tasks amongst threads.
Most modern applications take advantage of threads. Win2k/NT will manage those threads in SMP. I have been doing a lot of experimenting with threads under Win2k, watching how one apps threads are distributed amongst the processors. It's all pretty neat when you watch in in the performance monitor.
Plus with SMP you can do stuff like crunch MP3s on one processor while playing games at full speed on the other.
I don't think SMP is very popular right now because A) Really no games support it B) On the games that do, it does not seem to do much for the FPS C) AMD does not support it right now, nor does the P4.
You bet if q3a's SMP support yielded 50% better FPS everyone would want a SMP box.
On a last note, Win2k's SMP support is not as good as Linux. That matters more for server stuff than desktop stuff, if you ask me.
I don't really know what the definition of an "SMP enabled app" is. To the best of my knowledge, there is no SMP specific API for Win32 (I may be wrong). I guess it is just how the app is developed to specifically distribute high usage tasks amongst threads.
Most modern applications take advantage of threads. Win2k/NT will manage those threads in SMP. I have been doing a lot of experimenting with threads under Win2k, watching how one apps threads are distributed amongst the processors. It's all pretty neat when you watch in in the performance monitor.
Plus with SMP you can do stuff like crunch MP3s on one processor while playing games at full speed on the other.
I don't think SMP is very popular right now because A) Really no games support it B) On the games that do, it does not seem to do much for the FPS C) AMD does not support it right now, nor does the P4.
You bet if q3a's SMP support yielded 50% better FPS everyone would want a SMP box.
On a last note, Win2k's SMP support is not as good as Linux. That matters more for server stuff than desktop stuff, if you ask me.
<< And IMO a faster disk system, more RAM, or a faster single CPU all bring more benefit to 95% of the stuff most people are likely do to with their computers. >>
You are probably right. Perhaps I'm making incorrect assumptions...I'm guessing that he's probably got a lot of RAM and fast hard drives already, and he probably doesn't want a 1.5Ghz/Dual 1Ghz system to browse the web and check his email. Maybe those aren't valid assumptions. Personally I think that SMP is a benefit...but then maybe I do more with my computer than other people do.
Especially those long tedious complies, those really eat the CPU time. If you have 2 then you've got a better shot and doing other things while your computer is running.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter