dual core processor

Mike,
I use MSI and Gigabyte boards. Bothe brands use either VIA or Nforce (Nvidia) chipsets.
I used to be a big fan of ASUS, but they made the problamatic boards I spoke of. They're probably OK now, but they left a bad taste in my mouth. (sound familiar). My last Tyan board caught fire while I was at lunch, and a whole group of Tyan based Tri Star machines that I bought all went bad. So, needless to say, I avoid them as well. But then again, they may be OK now.
Regards
Mark
Reply to
MM
Loading thread data ...
WT,
If you have a true dual core then in the General tab of System properties there should be two processors listed under Computer:
Also there will be two processor entries in Hardware/Device lists. You will have to Show Hidden Devices to see them.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
TOP
It's too embarrassing to post them. In general SW is only about 15% faster on an Intel PentiumD 840 compared to a P4 2.66GHz. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed. However, my video editing software, Photoshop, Rendering, Cosmos, are significantly better. Cosmos, video and rendering especially seem better than twice as fast. Photoshop filters also run in less than half the time with the dual processor patch from Adobe.
Mike
Reply to
MJS
Well that's sort of what I had expected, but not here. Keep in mind that this is XP32, if that makes a difference.
On the General tab of System Properties under the Computer heading, it shows:
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz 3.19 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Physical Address Extension
Then on the Device Manager page it shows:
Computer ACPI Multiprocessor PC
Processors Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20Ghz
Going to the View menu and checking Show Hidden Devices doesn't make any more show up.
Thoughts? I was lead to believe that this processor was dual core, but I never could prove it.
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
WT,
It has two entries in the General tab (3.2 and 3.19) but it should also have two in the Device Manager. When I set mine up I had to make sure I had the latest BIOS to get the dual core to work. Perhaps checking the Mfgs website for troubleshooting dual core? Do you have two CPU graphs in Task Manager?
Reply to
MJS
1 graph. However, when this machine had XP64 on it, I noticed that it did have two CPU graphs. I also took another look at the BIOS and it's only showing CPU 0: and none other. So, all this is making me wonder if it's not going to happen with XP32 on this machine. On the other hand, why not??
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
WT,
Yeah, "why not?" is a good question. I have XPPro32bit and it shows two CPU's in all the places I talked about prior.
Reply to
MJS
I would suggest, (although you may have tried all this)
1. Task Manager, click the performance TAB, then View / CPU History / check One CPU per graph.
formatting link
2. Is there a switch in the BIOS to enable both cores?
3. check to see if there is a BIOS upgrade available.
And once you get it going read link below, it has some interesting reading regarding Hyperthreading. Maybe I shouldn't have turned Hyperthreading off on my clients SolidWorks PC after all.
formatting link

John Layne
formatting link
Reply to
John Layne
1. No choice there.
2. No, or I haven't found it, although I have studied it several times.
3. Haven't yet, but will.
Read the link - interesting. I had tried HT on & off and came to the conclusion that my machine was slightly better at doing other work while SW was chunking away if HT were turned off. Seemed backwards, but that was my gut feel. I'm not done with this thing yet.......
WT
"John Layne" > showing CPU 0: and none other. So, all this is making me wonder if it's
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany
Keep us posted!
Found this info below from
formatting link
"When we installed one Xeon on the Prestonia core the BIOS informed about two CPUs; in case of two processors it informs of 4. The operating system identifies "both processors" without problems, but only if two conditions below are met.
First of all, the CMOS Setup of the latest BIOS versions of the Supermicro P4DCxx board has item Enable Hyper-Threading; if it is disabled the OS identifies only physical processors. Secondly, the ACPI is used to inform the OS about additional logical processors. That is why to enable the Hyper-Threading the ACPI must be activated in the CMOS Setup, and the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) with ACPI support must also be enabled for the OS. Fortunately, in the Windows 2000 it's easy to change the HAL from the Standard PC (or MPS Uni-/Multiprocessor PC) to ACPI Uni-/Multiprocessor PC by changing the "computer driver" in the device manager. At the same time, the only way in the Windows XP to switch to the ACPI HAL is to install the system over the current one."
You seem to hav the correct HAL installed
Reply to
John Layne
HT is different than dual core. HT will only show one entry in Device Manager. HT is one processor core acting on threads as two whereas dual core is just like a dual processor (logically) even though they're still on one die. However, HT should still show two processors in Task Manager as long as the BIOS and XEON and Software support it. Did you look on Intel's website for the exact processor model?
formatting link
formatting link
and
formatting link
An earlier look might have saved us some threads...
Also check out John's links below for further explanation.
Reply to
MJS
Maybe this explains it???? I turned on HT and now can see 2 processors both in Device Manager & Task Manager. So dual core at this time is a myth???
Intel® Processor Family Projected Platform Release Date
Intel® Itanium® 2 Dual-Core Processor 4QTR, 2005
Intel® XeonT Dual-Core Processor MP 4QTR, 2005
Intel® XeonT Dual-Core Processor 4QTR, 2005
None of the Intel links list dual core - bah humbug! What a misuse of time & expectation. I am still investigating the effect of turning HT on/off and setting the affinity. I'm tired - time to go home to sleeeeeeeeeeppppppzzzzzzzz..........................
WT
Reply to
Wayne Tiffany

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.