Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?

Canuck

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:06:34 GMT, "The Frozen Canuck"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
>
>Canuck
>
>

For single threaded programs under Windows XP pro for example the OS
balances the work load between the 2 cores unless the cpu affinity is
set to CPU0 or CPU1. In windows xp pro task manager, select a running
exe like "notepad.exe", right click , select affinity.

EdG

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:06:34 GMT, "The Frozen Canuck"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
> >
> >Canuck
> >
> >
>
> For single threaded programs under Windows XP pro for example the OS
> balances the work load between the 2 cores unless the cpu affinity is
> set to CPU0 or CPU1. In windows xp pro task manager, select a running
> exe like "notepad.exe", right click , select affinity.
>
> EdG

Yeah, I rarely have to touch affinity even on my older dual-CPU board.
XP does a decent enough job of handling the scheduling.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Toshi1873 <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:06:34 GMT, "The Frozen Canuck"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
>> >
>> >Canuck
>> >
>> >
>>
>> For single threaded programs under Windows XP pro for example the OS
>> balances the work load between the 2 cores unless the cpu affinity is
>> set to CPU0 or CPU1. In windows xp pro task manager, select a running
>> exe like "notepad.exe", right click , select affinity.
>>
>> EdG
>
>Yeah, I rarely have to touch affinity even on my older dual-CPU board.
>XP does a decent enough job of handling the scheduling.

I just wrote a small program to auto set the affinity, like madden 05
doesn't like a dual core, but I didn't install any of the dual core
hot-fixes or patches either, so who knows. ;p

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:22:58 -0600, EdG wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Toshi1873 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:06:34 GMT, "The Frozen Canuck"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
>>> >
>>> >Canuck
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> For single threaded programs under Windows XP pro for example the OS
>>> balances the work load between the 2 cores unless the cpu affinity is
>>> set to CPU0 or CPU1. In windows xp pro task manager, select a running
>>> exe like "notepad.exe", right click , select affinity.
>>>
>>> EdG
>>
>>Yeah, I rarely have to touch affinity even on my older dual-CPU board.
>>XP does a decent enough job of handling the scheduling.
>
> I just wrote a small program to auto set the affinity, like madden 05
> doesn't like a dual core, but I didn't install any of the dual core
> hot-fixes or patches either, so who knows. ;p

You should never have to set a processor affinity, the OS should be able
to handle that. Install the OS patches and then see if you still have any
problems.

It is further alleged that on or about Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:22:58
-0600, in alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, the queezy keyboard of EdG
<(E-Mail Removed)> spewed the following:

|On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Toshi1873 <(E-Mail Removed)>
|wrote:
|
|>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
|>(E-Mail Removed) says...
|>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:06:34 GMT, "The Frozen Canuck"
|>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|>>
|>> >Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
|>> >
|>> >Canuck
|>> >
|>> >
|>>
|>> For single threaded programs under Windows XP pro for example the OS
|>> balances the work load between the 2 cores unless the cpu affinity is
|>> set to CPU0 or CPU1. In windows xp pro task manager, select a running
|>> exe like "notepad.exe", right click , select affinity.
|>>
|>> EdG
|>
|>Yeah, I rarely have to touch affinity even on my older dual-CPU board.
|>XP does a decent enough job of handling the scheduling.
|
|I just wrote a small program to auto set the affinity, like madden 05
|doesn't like a dual core, but I didn't install any of the dual core
|hot-fixes or patches either, so who knows. ;p

<double take>

I would be very interested in taking a look at the program; lots of
possibilities. One question. If you choose the affinity for an
intensive app, will it result in higher overall cpu temps?
--

-nos1eep

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> General
Schvantzkoph <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You should never have to set a processor affinity, the OS should be able
>to handle that. Install the OS patches and then see if you still have any
>problems.

"Should" is relative. You rarely have any "need" to set processor
affinity, but you can sometimes increase performance by doing so with
specific applications.

--
"Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!"

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> nos1eep
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If you choose the affinity for an
>intensive app, will it result in higher overall cpu temps?

Short answer, no.

Ultimately, regardless of affinity, the same amount of work needs to be
done and that will generate the same amount of heat. Windows will tend
to load processors roughly evenly, give or take, so this will tend to
keep the temperatures roughly even.

If you for processes to one or the other CPU (or core), you may result
in one or the other working harder and generating more heat, but the
other will generate less heat.

From a case cooling point of view, it's all the same. From a CPU
cooling point of view, if your cooling isn't adequate to handle 100%
load for an extended period of time, you've got bigger problems.

--
"Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!"

It is further alleged that on or about Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:45:02
-0700, in alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, the queezy keyboard of
DevilsPGD <(E-Mail Removed)> spewed the following:

|In message <(E-Mail Removed)> nos1eep
|<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|
|>If you choose the affinity for an
|>intensive app, will it result in higher overall cpu temps?
|
|Short answer, no.
|
|Ultimately, regardless of affinity, the same amount of work needs to be
|done and that will generate the same amount of heat. Windows will tend
|to load processors roughly evenly, give or take, so this will tend to
|keep the temperatures roughly even.
|
|If you for processes to one or the other CPU (or core), you may result
|in one or the other working harder and generating more heat, but the
|other will generate less heat.
|
|From a case cooling point of view, it's all the same. From a CPU
|cooling point of view, if your cooling isn't adequate to handle 100%
|load for an extended period of time, you've got bigger problems.

Interesting. Thanks.
--

-nos1eep

"The Frozen Canuck" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>Or does the core logic split some programs/processes between two processor?
>
>Canuck
>

From the standpoint of all operating systems that run on the system,
it appears to be a two cpu system.

How to determine what is running on a given CPU is operating system
specific, and you didn't specify your OS.

If a program/process is multithreaded, two threads may execute
simultaneously.

scott