quad core support for Windows ?

[Samsonid]

Hi all,

It seems my Win2k pro only sees 2 of the four cores on a Q6600 intel.

This brings the question: Wwhich versions of Windows out there support multicore CPUs ?

Is there a way to enable win2k to see all four cores ?

 

[stash]

You'll need to go to XP or higher (2003, Vista). You might be able to get quad cores working on 2000 Server or 2000 Advanced Server, but they don't actually support muticores or hyper-threading.

http://download.microsoft.com/..._hyperthread_brief.doc

 

[Samsonid]

Thanks Stash, it seems a good time to put this dinosaur OS to rest. It served well.
Most likely I will go with XP pro. Although XP is a dinosaur of its own I am not too fond of the things I hear on Vista.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Samsonid
Thanks Stash, it seems a good time to put this dinosaur OS to rest. It served well.
Most likely I will go with XP pro. Although XP is a dinosaur of its own I am not too fond of the things I hear on Vista.

Vista has better multicore support than does XP. Vista was designed with multicore CPU's in mind where in XP it was an afterthought enabled with sp2.

Keep in mind most of the things that troubled users about Vista have been fixed either by updates or better drivers. In fact, a large number of the people complaining about Vista right now have either never touched Vista or have not spent very much time on it. Many of them are completely ignorant of the changes between Vista and XP so they still use outdated information when evaluating Vista. A good example of this is the people running around saying Vista eats all of their RAM while not understanding Vista was designed to keep the RAM cached for better performance. (Superfetch)

If you could, please list the things you heard about Vista that concern you? There are several knowledgeable people on this forum that may be able to clear those things up for you.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: stash
You'll need to go to XP or higher (2003, Vista). You might be able to get quad cores working on 2000 Server or 2000 Advanced Server, but they don't actually support muticores or hyper-threading.

http://download.microsoft.com/..._hyperthread_brief.doc

Yes, Windows 2000 does support multiple cores. :roll:

It even supports Hyperthreading. I've ran a P4 w/HT on Windows 2000 Pro without a problem. Windows 2000 will also see all cores on a CPU as well.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, Windows 2000 does support multiple cores.

It even supports Hyperthreading. I've ran a P4 w/HT on Windows 2000 Pro without a problem. Windows 2000 will also see all cores on a CPU as well.

It can see them but it can't distinguish between physical sockets and logical cores so Win2K Pro only supports up to 2 cores and won't manage the shared resources as well as XP and up.

 

[stash]

What Nothinman said Which is why I added that a quad should work on the server SKUs of 2000 because they support 4+ physical CPUs. But none of the 2000 SKUs are technically "aware" of multicores or HT.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
It can see them but it can't distinguish between physical sockets and logical cores so Win2K Pro only supports up to 2 cores and won't manage the shared resources as well as XP and up.

The license support is per processor socket. If there's multiple cores on a single socket then it will support it.

It supposedly doesn't support Hyperthreading in the white papers but it did indeed use the second virtual core and did indeed give me a performance boost. Of course who wants to really run Windows 2000 over XP anyway?

 

[stash]

The license support is per processor socket. If there's multiple cores on a single socket then it will support it.

Yes, but we're talking about a quad core here. 2000 Pro only supports two CPUs, and the OS can't distinguish between a core and a socket. If you have a single quad core CPU, Windows 2000 will only use two cores. XP or Vista will use all four.

Or if you had two quad core CPUs, 2000 Pro will still only use 2 cores, whereas XP Pro and certain versions of Vista would use all 8 cores.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: stash

The license support is per processor socket. If there's multiple cores on a single socket then it will support it.

Yes, but we're talking about a quad core here. 2000 Pro only supports two CPUs, and the OS can't distinguish between a core and a socket. If you have a single quad core CPU, Windows 2000 will only use two cores. XP or Vista will use all four.

Or if you had two quad core CPUs, 2000 Pro will still only use 2 cores, whereas XP Pro and certain versions of Vista would use all 8 cores.

No, it only supports two processor sockets per the license. That's what the OS distinguishes between.

Why do you think Windows XP Home will support a quad core? It only supports a single CPU socket but will support a quad core processor. Heck, if a 6 or 8 core CPU comes out it will work on Windows XP Home.

 

[stash]

No, it only supports two processor sockets per the license. That's what the OS distinguishes between.

No kidding. But again, 2000 cannot distinguish between a core and a socket. Which is why if you drop a quad core into a single socket on 2000, it will only see 2 cores.

Why do you think Windows XP Home will support a quad core? It only supports a single CPU socket but will support a quad core processor. Heck, if a 6 or 8 core CPU comes out it will work on Windows XP Home.

No shit. That's what I just said. It's what I posted with the link in my first reponse XP Home supports a single socket with unlimited cores. XP Pro supports two sockets with unlimited cores. The different versions of Vista are the same.

What you can't seem to understand is that yes, 2000 Pro supports two sockets. But it doesn't know the difference between two single core CPUs and one dual core CPU. With a single dual core CPU on 2000, you are maxing out the license, even if you have an empty second socket on your board. If you drop another CPU in that socket, 2000 Pro will not use it. Or it may use one core from each socket. But it will not see all the cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: stash
You'll need to go to XP or higher (2003, Vista). You might be able to get quad cores working on 2000 Server or 2000 Advanced Server, but they don't actually support muticores or hyper-threading.

http://download.microsoft.com/..._hyperthread_brief.doc

According to that - MS isn't even following their own licensing guidelines, when dealing with Intel processors!

What are multichip modules? Does the multicore and hyperthreaded processor licensing policy affect licensing for multichip modules?
Multichip modules are multiple, separate processors aggregated into one package or board. The multicore licensing policy does not affect licensing for multichip modules. For server applications licensed per-processor, a separate license is still required for every processor in a multichip module.

Both the Pentium D dual-core, as well as the Q6600 quad-cores, are multichip modules, two seperate CPU dies in one package.

According to MS's guidelines, those chips should take up the equivalent of a dual-socket license.

Apparently, MS is breaking their own guidelines, in order to convey favor on Intel. If these guidelines were properly followed, then AMD's native quad-core CPUs would have a software licensing advantage over Intel's. But of course, MS supports Intel's monopolistic efforts over AMD.

 

[stash]

That's an interesting point. I'd point out that the doc was published about 18 months before Intel released its first quad-core to the market, but still a good point. AFAIK, this is the current licensing guidance, but I wonder if it is being updated.

I wouldn't say that MS favors Intel over AMD though, since they are both MS partners. Microsoft worked a lot with AMD to evangelize 64-bit computing when AMD64 was released, and I would say clearly favored it over Intel's only 64-bit offering at the time (Itanium) for obvious reasons. Case in point: XP x64, which when first released only worked with AMD64. After releasing that, Microsoft abandoned XP 64-bit Edition (which was the Itanium version).

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: stash
You'll need to go to XP or higher (2003, Vista). You might be able to get quad cores working on 2000 Server or 2000 Advanced Server, but they don't actually support muticores or hyper-threading.

http://download.microsoft.com/..._hyperthread_brief.doc

According to that - MS isn't even following their own licensing guidelines, when dealing with Intel processors!

What are multichip modules? Does the multicore and hyperthreaded processor licensing policy affect licensing for multichip modules?
Multichip modules are multiple, separate processors aggregated into one package or board. The multicore licensing policy does not affect licensing for multichip modules. For server applications licensed per-processor, a separate license is still required for every processor in a multichip module.

Both the Pentium D dual-core, as well as the Q6600 quad-cores, are multichip modules, two seperate CPU dies in one package.

According to MS's guidelines, those chips should take up the equivalent of a dual-socket license.

Apparently, MS is breaking their own guidelines, in order to convey favor on Intel. If these guidelines were properly followed, then AMD's native quad-core CPUs would have a software licensing advantage over Intel's. But of course, MS supports Intel's monopolistic efforts over AMD.

MCM in that context probably refers to POWER-style MCM's, rather than the "semi dual-core" P4's and such.
Not that there are any x86/amd64 like that, but hey, might as well play it safe in case someone releases one, eh?

 

[Parasitic]

Aside from the stupid TDR errors I'm actually enjoying Vista. Yes on the surface it seems to use more resources than XP but it's also a tad more responsive too.

 

[techs]

iirc all the Windows 2000 product stickers are labeled 1-2 Core.

 

[Nothinman]

iirc all the Windows 2000 product stickers are labeled 1-2 Core.

They're labeled 1-2 CPU, not core.