-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Is WindowsXP required to run a hyper threading CPU?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

#1 of 12 OFFLINE   John Pine

John Pine

    Supporting Actor

  • 988 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2002

Posted May 16 2004 - 01:29 AM

I’m still running Win98SE. Yeah….I know...I know..... I am considering upgrading my P4 1.8A to something faster. Will I have to upgrade my OS as well? Was o/c-ing the 1.8 to 2.4 but it’s not completely stable. My m/b is a Gigabyte GA-8IEXP (ver 2.0) which has the 845E chipset and 400/533 FSB support. Also, running Crucial DDR PC2700 512MB memory. The Gigabyte website says the m/b supports the P4-Northwood 3.06G (533FSB) Hyper Threading CPU. I don’t do a lot of multitasking, but I do a lot a CD burning and game playing. Would this upgrade be possible or worth the dough? Really not interested in upgrading my OS or m/b. Just looking for a quick and cheap CPU upgrade with bang for the buck! Any feedback would be appreciated!
"War Eagle!"

#2 of 12 OFFLINE   Chris

Chris

    Lead Actor

  • 6,790 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 1997

Posted May 16 2004 - 02:15 AM

The CPU will still run.

But you will not get Hyperthreading support without Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, etc.

BTW, the impact on CD Burning is 0. The impact on games is mixed.

I'd still upgrade to XP as 98SE is very dated Posted Image
My Current DVD-Profiler


"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07

#3 of 12 OFFLINE   John Pine

John Pine

    Supporting Actor

  • 988 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2002

Posted May 16 2004 - 02:32 AM

Chris: Thought I read XP was required. I just don't keep up with PC hardware the way I used to. Man...I used to have it bad, was O/C-ing even before the Celeron 300a@450 was popular. Ya' know, come to think of it, I don't think I've spent a dime on my PC since I started seriously upgrading my HT a couple of years ago. Anyway, that's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks Chris!
"War Eagle!"

#4 of 12 OFFLINE   gregstaten

gregstaten

    Supporting Actor

  • 601 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 01 1997

Posted May 16 2004 - 02:58 AM

More importantly, unless something has changed recently you need Windows XP Professional to get hyperthreading. Windows XP Home does not support hyperthreading.

-greg

#5 of 12 OFFLINE   StephenL

StephenL

    Second Unit

  • 341 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2000

Posted May 16 2004 - 03:49 AM

Windows XP Home and XP Professional include optimizations for Hyper-Threading. XP Professional is required for dual processors (two seperate physical processors).

http://www.intel.com....id=ipp_htm os

http://www.intel.com....ading_more.htm

http://www.intel.com....g/overview.htm

http://www.theinquir...t/?article=5608

http://www.eweek.com...9,524969,00.asp
"It's most disappointing. I shall have to go all-out on some modifications."

#6 of 12 OFFLINE   gregstaten

gregstaten

    Supporting Actor

  • 601 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 01 1997

Posted May 16 2004 - 08:04 AM

My error. I know I read it once and it appears that, according to the articles you linked, there was some misinformation. Glad to hear that isn't the case.

-greg

#7 of 12 OFFLINE   Tekara

Tekara

    Supporting Actor

  • 783 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2003

Posted May 16 2004 - 01:33 PM

Hyperhtreading really shows it's stuff when your doing multiple things. Burning a CD while surfing the net and running a media player all at the same time for example. Hyper-threading basically lets the OS make real use out the spare processor cycles.
"Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous
"The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai

#8 of 12 OFFLINE   Chris

Chris

    Lead Actor

  • 6,790 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 1997

Posted May 16 2004 - 04:14 PM

True, but on the other hand, in some benchmarks, HT can slow you down as well.

http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_3.html

HT makes -some- difference, but it doesn't make a night and day difference, and in many cases, it makes very very little difference.
My Current DVD-Profiler


"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07

#9 of 12 OFFLINE   Vince Maskeeper

Vince Maskeeper

    Lead Actor

  • 6,504 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 1999

Posted May 17 2004 - 06:07 AM

Does 2000 support hyperthreading? My 2000 box shows it as dual processing in the hardware settings, and software like Tmpgenc detects as hyperthreading- so am I not getting actual horsepower out of it?

-V
Need an introduction to home theater? Check out our FAQ and Primer!!

#10 of 12 OFFLINE   Ken Chan

Ken Chan

    Producer

  • 3,302 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 11 1999

Posted May 17 2004 - 10:23 AM

Supposedly not. Open up the Task Manager (right-click the Task Bar). On the Performance page, do you have two CPU graphs?

#11 of 12 OFFLINE   Wayne Bundrick

Wayne Bundrick

    Screenwriter

  • 2,358 posts
  • Join Date: May 17 1999

Posted May 17 2004 - 05:21 PM

Windows 2000 will think a hyperthreading processor is two physical processors. I don't know the full explanation but hyperthreading is not recommended for Windows 2000.
Wayne Bundrick

"It tastes like there's a party in my mouth and everybody's throwing up!" -- Philip J. Fry

#12 of 12 OFFLINE   Chad Ellinger

Chad Ellinger

    Second Unit

  • 270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 18 2000

Posted May 18 2004 - 02:33 PM

Windows 2000 will think a hyperthreading processor is two physical processors. I don't know the full explanation but hyperthreading is not recommended for Windows 2000.


That's correct. XP understands the difference between separate logical processors (hyperthreading) and separate physical processors. 2000 does not. In some instances, you may see a performance boost with hyperthreading enabled in 2000, but because the thread scheduler thinks that 2 CPUs are installed, you may run into performance hits. Intel recommends disabling hyperthreading on Windows 2000.