No multi physical cpu support!

I am using an older Tyan 2885 servor board with 2 dual core opterons they show as 4 seperate cores

logicearth said:

andych said:

I think you will find that Home Premium only supports ONE Physical Processor as shown in the shot below (from Windows 7 editions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

I suppose Paul Thurrott could have gotten it wrong but in his table, Home Premium is listed for 2 Physical Processors. http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win...sp#performance

I would say he got it wrong for sure because the reason I know that vista ultimate is the only version that supports multi physical is because like I said in the original post but not in exact words..............................

When I was biulding my pc I bought home premium and noticed that it said in msconfig that it only had 2 processors and i called AMD and ASUS and both of them(trying to pacify me off the phone I am sure) told me that it is showing 2 because I have 2 physical processors. That is when I said....No my dual core 4200 athlon showed 2 processors in the same place and it was 1 dual core. This new biuld is 2 dual cores which means it is 4 processors. And when they ran out of crap to feed me I had to go research it myself. ( this was the week that Vista was released) So I went to the Microsoft site and looked at everything I could and found that there at the bottom was something that only ultimate had checked and none of the others did...... MULTI PHYSICAL PROCESSOR SUPPORT...YES....how many.....2. SO when I purchased and installed Ultimate I went back to msconfig and it said I had 4 processors which was satisfactory to me that the issue was solved.. I then ran the benchmarks again and the system processor scores DOUBLED!



@ H2S04 who quoted and commented


Quote: Originally Posted by abeeftec
It is totally redesigned to be a gaming rig. This board is an awsome board and it is comparable in real time situations in gaming to my qx9650 system.


Actually, games are not yet particularly good at spawning multiple number-crunching threads. Some big tasks are easier to break up into little chunks than others. A lot of fundamental computer science research goes into that area.

Anyway, is there any chance we could do this with less emotion? I didn't insult your beloved board - I'm sure it's great. My point was that there are cheaper ways of improving desktop performance.


I dont think that I am emotional about the issue at all. I just try to put emphasis on things I would like someone to remember so that the thread doesnt turn into what it has already.... A bunch of people fast reading and commenting before they understand what is going on. I have noticed that alot of comments have been regarding things that are clearly posted in my original post. Like the comment I just made above. I didnt think you were insulting my board because of any knowledge about the board personally but possibly another issue that i have online.. ALot of people that are genius level( and they really are) know things from being around and have preconcieved ideas about some things... Maybe your idea is that server boards are not for gaming... which is true totally. But getting away from the norm and thinking about growth and technological advancments would suggest that if a company biulds something like that and calls it a name that would be associated with speed and put on the same board the first 4 PCI-E x16 lanes on a board then you would assume since you can hook 4 video cards to it that it would automatically make it for more then data or server. So they just may know something about what they are doing.
And per your original comments... these processors together were cheaper then ONE intel processor. I paid 600 for 2 processors with the inclination that I would have an 8 core system within Q1 08 which was promised to all that went this route and was scrapped due to fear of intel kicking AMDs ass. Which I say they didnt. Well Intel did beat them but not by what the numbers showed. The numbers showed that the platform I have was only ever so slightly faster then ONE FX 60 and that was not true either because of this very issue we are talking about here. PHYSICAL PROCESSOR SUPPORT. All the testers posted results saying that but they also said it would get a little closer when Vista came out because of the NUMA support. But when Vista did come out they posted almost the same numbers. And the reason was they tested in HOME PREMIUM. And yes though they had the NUMA support they were hoping would make it closer they lost the processor support which killed it. And instead of seeing that they posted the results and noone. Not AMD neither ASUS caught that. So it went on that Intel had beaten the 4x4 Quadfather system hands down! And when I biult one and had this issue I was talking to people at ASUS and AMD And both of them were unaware of the fact that VISTAS LESS THEN TOP OPERATING SYSTEMS DID NOT HAVE MULTI SUPPORT. THEY WERE ALL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT HAD IT!!!! So was I because the way they advertised Vista was that it was going to be such an advanced and elaborate OS that you would be in need of nothing! Of course they didnt say that but they DID in fact imply it.

where in MSCONFIG does it tell you how many cores you have?
the place I am talking about is DXDIAG first page where the sytem info is. that is where I looked it up then and where I am looking now.




1 Day Ago 03:03 AMH2SO4Quote: Originally Posted by abeeftec
It is totally redesigned to be a gaming rig. This board is an awsome board and it is comparable in real time situations in gaming to my qx9650 system.


Actually, games are not yet particularly good at spawning multiple number-crunching threads. Some big tasks are easier to break up into little chunks than others. A lot of fundamental computer science research goes into that area.

Anyway, is there any chance we could do this with less emotion? I didn't insult your beloved board - I'm sure it's great. My point was that there are cheaper ways of improving desktop performance.

1 Day Ago 03:03 AMH2SO4Quote: Originally Posted by abeeftec
It is totally redesigned to be a gaming rig. This board is an awsome board and it is comparable in real time situations in gaming to my qx9650 system.


Actually, games are not yet particularly good at spawning multiple number-crunching threads. Some big tasks are easier to break up into little chunks than others. A lot of fundamental computer science research goes into that area.

Anyway, is there any chance we could do this with less emotion? I didn't insult your beloved board - I'm sure it's great. My point was that there are cheaper ways of improving desktop performance.

abeeftec said:

I would say he got it wrong for sure because the reason I know that vista ultimate is the only version that supports multi physical is because like I said in the original post but not in exact words..............................

That is Windows Vista, it may or may not apply to Windows 7. However its not like I can go about testing that myself.

Just to test things out, what output would this give you: Coreinfo However, I can probably already assume the output.

As for MSCONFIG that was mentioned, maybe this screenshot would help.

Hi there
I'm not getting involved in this argument about what Windows supports or not - but I echo the advice about there's no need to use server boards on a home computer.

I've got one machine with a Lower end QUAD processor (Q9400) which STLL gives a 7.2 processor score on calculations per second which is better than the OP's rating with TWO processors (7.1).

We sometimes get carried away with this stuff - but it really depends on what you are actually DOING on the machine.

A server board in any case won't be the best choice for games - you need a board where you can slot in the best possiple graphics GPU - this is in W7 more important than a really fast CPU as the graphics stuff is now done much more in the GPU itself than by the main OS.

Bus speed, fast data transfer with hard disks and adequate fast RAM are the requirements here.

I would probably hazard a guess that around 75% of peoples machines suffer from lack of RAM, poor network cards giving only 10 / 100 mb/s network speed or bad disks than not having enough enough CPU power.

Incidentally if you want a bit of fun go into your local equivalent of PC World or Media Mart and ask the poor hapless "salesman" to show you Gigabit ethernet cards -- he'll probably look for a manufacturer called gigabit if he even understands what you are talking about.

Cheers
jimbo

Hi all

Just found this forum searching for this particular "limitation" on Windows 7.
Yesterday I installed Windows 7 Home Premium on a dual Xeon, 8 cores each (with hyperthreading). Well, Windows only recognizes one CPU, as it's telling me that I have only 8 processors, when on the Ultimate RC1 I had all 16 available.

Just to clarify this -disappointing- limitation on Home Premium.

Bye!!

SpawnSP said:

Hi all

Just found this forum searching for this particular "limitation" on Windows 7.
Yesterday I installed Windows 7 Home Premium on a dual Xeon, 8 cores each (with hyperthreading). Well, Windows only recognizes one CPU, as it's telling me that I have only 8 processors, when on the Ultimate RC1 I had all 16 available.

Just to clarify this -disappointing- limitation on Home Premium.

Bye!!

That's pure licensing. MS is a commercial software development outfit. They are not only in it for the money - they are legally bound to seek to make a profit, being a publicly traded company.

You'd have to agree that there's something of a disconnect between the types of workloads likely to employ a HT dual Xeon and the notion of "home" use. If you think forking out a few bucks more for Ultimate is bad, you should see what Oracle would charge you per-processor for their stuff

Well, it is a home computer. I use it for 3D rendering, but for now it's just a hobby. Maybe a Dual Xeon is not commonly used as a home computer, but I wouldn't be surprised if a ultra-high end gaming computer, comes with a dual Core2Duo (or even i7) setup or something like that.

I really could understand that limitation if MS had made it clear from the beginning. But right now I still can't find anything on their website that clearly says that Home Premium doesn't support more than one physical CPU.

I checked their product comparison web, and based on that information, i decided that I needed no more than Home Premium. I wouldn't had a problem on purchasing Professional or even Ultimate if clearly that was the OS I needed for a dual CPU setup.

And by finding info I mean official MS info. Other websites with that information can be found on the net (although some of them are contradictory about this limitation), but normally you find them once you have the problem and searched for it.

Bye!! :)