Vista - Which version support dual core or quad core?

12-02-2006

Correction:

.... and probably was an "ultimate" result.

Should have been: ... and probably was NOT an "ultimate" result.

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%236VoX%23cFHHA.2468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >[...],you will nerve get as good performance with a CPU with 2 cores as
> >you would with 2 single core CPUs due to many physical constraints on the
> >throughput and the underlying architecture of multi core chips. But this
> >is a sweeping generalisation.
>
> Hi,
>
> No offense and the following are based on my limited knowledge

>
> That may not be always the case, and may not be at this time.
>
> Two physical units is always less desirable (for performance and other
> factors) than one physical unit for many reasons - skip for simplicity.
>
> I will suggest OP go to Intel, AMD, or Microsoft to see if there are any
> benchmark comparisons to see the current performance of CPU's vs. various
> applications including OSes.
>
>> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2
>> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a
>> certain degree
>
> In terms of cooperation, scheduling (determine which instruction sets to
> be processed by which units) or synchronization (when jobs have been
> processed and returned for use), it is always needed and largely based on
> the quality of algorithms used to determine the speed and efficiency, and
> again, among other physical factors such as shorter distance is better (so
> two physical is farer than two in one die) and others.
>
> By no means I am a CPU expert, but in fact, the basic CPU design theory is
> very easy to understand and it is based on "production" theory, whereas
> each processing unit is literally treated as a processing unit in
> production line and jobs are instruction sets delivered by applications
> via users and/or application itself. So fundamentally, it is using the
> same job scheduling algorithms as would have been used for production.
> But just for job scheduling algorithm part, it is complicated enough, and
> the most interesting thing is, there is no "absolute" answer for which one
> is "right" and it is evolving every day. More than 10 years ago, I once
> studied nearly 500 scheduling algorithms for getting an ultimate result at
> that time. But even at that time, that was not a "thorough" study, and
> probably was an "ultimate" result. I mentioned this just to show how
> complicated it is, but not to imply I know a lot.
>
> So one can skip all the "high tech" part of CPU, and relate their
> knowledge of manufacturing production and/or other job scheduling for how
> CPU might have done the job - but of course, it will be enough to capture
> the concepts but details are much more complicated.
>
> In terms of performance of Vista using two physical units or multiple
> cores, I'll be interesting to learn if I have time for doing that, and if
> anyone care to share based on your experience. But for what I have
> learned from some papers in Intel, their multiple cores design was without
> consideration of when, or if, Vista will be released. So that gives me
> some doubts about how Vista will perform, but maybe they have synchronized
> the upper level of architecture long ago, so the rest are on
> functionalities level.
>
> Back to OP's question, in theory, it is as you think - it wouldn't care
> and once it delegated, it will be CPU to handle to job. Now the question
> is, how does it know, and if it actually knows, how many processing units
> are there AND if its scheduling algorithms are good enough for dispatching
> the jobs (so jobs won't be idle) and when results are returned to be
> further processed by OS (and application). The first part of the question
> is why I asked the previous question about if it's by design or license
> issue, and appreciate those who answered, so we know basic version might
> not even aware there is an additional unit or won't use it if it is there
> (if I understood the answer correctly) which means job dispatching won't
> make any difference for those versions. The second part of question will
> be those who design Windows and have some benchmark results to tell.
>
> So to boil down the above bla bla bla, the bottlenecks will be the
> application's (OS included) scheduling and synchronization abilities plus
> those of the CPU to get the performance you want - that is one of reasons,
> multiple CPUs (multiple cores or physical ones) are rarely used on PC
> level (other than PC server) - but that was before - and anything might be
> different at this and future point.
>
> Again, the above is based on my very rough knowledge and welcome
> additional corrections and comments.
>
>
>
> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> news:%23eUURMbFHHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
>> news:OTujbBbFHHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>>> churin wrote:
>>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any
>>>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>>>
>>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
>>>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
>>>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket.
>>>> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again
>>>> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>> Let me ask a follow-up question:
>>> My present PC uses a mobo with two single core proccessors and with one
>>> set of RAM. Is it true that I can get same level of performance as that
>>> with the above by one dual-core proccessor with one set of RAM? My logic
>>> is that the OS does not care whether the two CPUs are on the same die or
>>> not.
>>
>> In the broadest possible sense , you will nerve get as good performance
>> with a CPU with 2 cores as you would with 2 single core CPUs due to many
>> physical constraints on the throughput and the underlying architecture of
>> multi core chips. But this is a sweeping generalisation.
>> The issue is not about the OS but about the data paths and mother board
>> performance and many other hardware factors that can influence
>> performance.
>> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2
>> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a
>> certain degree
>>
>> (and now we open a huge can of worms and comment :-) )
>> --
>>
>> Mike Brannigan
>>
>>
>>
>
>

12-02-2006	#21 (permalink)
xfile n/a posts	Re: Which version support dual core or quad core? Correction: .... and probably was an "ultimate" result. Should have been: ... and probably was NOT an "ultimate" result. "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%236VoX%23cFHHA.2468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >[...],you will nerve get as good performance with a CPU with 2 cores as > >you would with 2 single core CPUs due to many physical constraints on the > >throughput and the underlying architecture of multi core chips. But this > >is a sweeping generalisation. > > Hi, > > No offense and the following are based on my limited knowledge > > That may not be always the case, and may not be at this time. > > Two physical units is always less desirable (for performance and other > factors) than one physical unit for many reasons - skip for simplicity. > > I will suggest OP go to Intel, AMD, or Microsoft to see if there are any > benchmark comparisons to see the current performance of CPU's vs. various > applications including OSes. > >> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2 >> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a >> certain degree > > In terms of cooperation, scheduling (determine which instruction sets to > be processed by which units) or synchronization (when jobs have been > processed and returned for use), it is always needed and largely based on > the quality of algorithms used to determine the speed and efficiency, and > again, among other physical factors such as shorter distance is better (so > two physical is farer than two in one die) and others. > > By no means I am a CPU expert, but in fact, the basic CPU design theory is > very easy to understand and it is based on "production" theory, whereas > each processing unit is literally treated as a processing unit in > production line and jobs are instruction sets delivered by applications > via users and/or application itself. So fundamentally, it is using the > same job scheduling algorithms as would have been used for production. > But just for job scheduling algorithm part, it is complicated enough, and > the most interesting thing is, there is no "absolute" answer for which one > is "right" and it is evolving every day. More than 10 years ago, I once > studied nearly 500 scheduling algorithms for getting an ultimate result at > that time. But even at that time, that was not a "thorough" study, and > probably was an "ultimate" result. I mentioned this just to show how > complicated it is, but not to imply I know a lot. > > So one can skip all the "high tech" part of CPU, and relate their > knowledge of manufacturing production and/or other job scheduling for how > CPU might have done the job - but of course, it will be enough to capture > the concepts but details are much more complicated. > > In terms of performance of Vista using two physical units or multiple > cores, I'll be interesting to learn if I have time for doing that, and if > anyone care to share based on your experience. But for what I have > learned from some papers in Intel, their multiple cores design was without > consideration of when, or if, Vista will be released. So that gives me > some doubts about how Vista will perform, but maybe they have synchronized > the upper level of architecture long ago, so the rest are on > functionalities level. > > Back to OP's question, in theory, it is as you think - it wouldn't care > and once it delegated, it will be CPU to handle to job. Now the question > is, how does it know, and if it actually knows, how many processing units > are there AND if its scheduling algorithms are good enough for dispatching > the jobs (so jobs won't be idle) and when results are returned to be > further processed by OS (and application). The first part of the question > is why I asked the previous question about if it's by design or license > issue, and appreciate those who answered, so we know basic version might > not even aware there is an additional unit or won't use it if it is there > (if I understood the answer correctly) which means job dispatching won't > make any difference for those versions. The second part of question will > be those who design Windows and have some benchmark results to tell. > > So to boil down the above bla bla bla, the bottlenecks will be the > application's (OS included) scheduling and synchronization abilities plus > those of the CPU to get the performance you want - that is one of reasons, > multiple CPUs (multiple cores or physical ones) are rarely used on PC > level (other than PC server) - but that was before - and anything might be > different at this and future point. > > Again, the above is based on my very rough knowledge and welcome > additional corrections and comments. > > > > "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message > news:%23eUURMbFHHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message >> news:OTujbBbFHHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Tom Porterfield wrote: >>>> churin wrote: >>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any >>>>> which support quad core cpu? >>>> >>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad >>>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor >>>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket. >>>> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again >>>> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket. >>> >>> Thanks for your reply. >>> Let me ask a follow-up question: >>> My present PC uses a mobo with two single core proccessors and with one >>> set of RAM. Is it true that I can get same level of performance as that >>> with the above by one dual-core proccessor with one set of RAM? My logic >>> is that the OS does not care whether the two CPUs are on the same die or >>> not. >> >> In the broadest possible sense , you will nerve get as good performance >> with a CPU with 2 cores as you would with 2 single core CPUs due to many >> physical constraints on the throughput and the underlying architecture of >> multi core chips. But this is a sweeping generalisation. >> The issue is not about the OS but about the data paths and mother board >> performance and many other hardware factors that can influence >> performance. >> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2 >> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a >> certain degree >> >> (and now we open a huge can of worms and comment :-) ) >> -- >> >> Mike Brannigan >> >> >> > >
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
Quad Core or Core 2 Duo??	Vista hardware & devices
Intel: Core i7 to Be Up to 52% Faster Compared to Core 2 Quad.	Vista News
Vista freezes solid on AMD dual core, single core ok	Vista hardware & devices
Dual core cpu problem, only one core being found by Vista Ultimate 64 bit	Vista installation & setup
BSOD if dual core support is enabled in BIOS	Vista General