Dual processor

[Greg]

My motherboard has 2 Athlon XP 1600+ processors (AMD-
760MPX chipset). I installed XP pro. I can see both
processors in the device manager and they seem to be
working. However when I look in my system properties, it
shows the speed for only one processor (1.4MHz). Should
I see better performance since I have 2 processors?

Thanks for clafification.
Greg

 

[Nik Simpson]

My motherboard has 2 Athlon XP 1600+ processors (AMD-
760MPX chipset). I installed XP pro. I can see both
processors in the device manager and they seem to be
working. However when I look in my system properties, it
shows the speed for only one processor (1.4MHz).

Which is what I would expect, no need to show it for both processors since
you aren't allowed to run with two processors of different speeds and 1.4GHz
is the actual clock speed for a an XP 1600

Should I see better performance since I have 2 processors?

Do you mean that you are expecting the system properties to show something
other than the 1.4GHz, i.e. two processors should show aup as 2.8GHz, if
that's what you mean, then the answer is no. If you mean a more general
question of whether a dual CPU system is faster than an a single CPU system
(at the same clock speed) then the general answer is yes, though the
difference in an individual application will vary greatly depending on
whether the application is optimized for multiple CPUs.

 

[wizzy]

u should see a better response running dual proccesors
though its hard to tell. U may notice better perfomance on
software that is designed to use multitasking and
hyperthreading....

 

[Greg]

Nik,

Thanks for your e-mail. Both of the processors are the
same speed, so it should be allowed?

I read that XP pro supported 2 processors so I expected
to see performance close to the sum of the 2 processors:
1.4GHz + 1.4GHz ~ 2.8GHz.

So how does XP support a 2 processor motherboard? Does
it automatically assign one of them to background
processes and the other to applications?

Or did I waste my money in upgrading from XP Home to XP
pro?

Thanks again for your comments.
Greg

 

[Jim Macklin]

When you upgraded from Home to Pro, did you have the second
CPU installed at that time? If not, you need to do an
in-place (repair install) so the dual CPU is seen by the OS.

Also, the application you run has to be written to use dual
CPUs. Some applications, such as the $600 PhotoShop does,
but most programs do not support dual CPUs.

Performance increases, measured by the time required to do
some operation may show no improvement, to nearly twice, all
depending on what operations are being done and how well the
application is written.


message | Nik,
|
| Thanks for your e-mail. Both of the processors are the
| same speed, so it should be allowed?
|
| I read that XP pro supported 2 processors so I expected
| to see performance close to the sum of the 2 processors:
| 1.4GHz + 1.4GHz ~ 2.8GHz.
|
| So how does XP support a 2 processor motherboard? Does
| it automatically assign one of them to background
| processes and the other to applications?
|
| Or did I waste my money in upgrading from XP Home to XP
| pro?
|
| Thanks again for your comments.
| Greg
| >-----Original Message-----
| >Greg wrote:
| >> My motherboard has 2 Athlon XP 1600+ processors (AMD-
| >> 760MPX chipset). I installed XP pro. I can see both
| >> processors in the device manager and they seem to be
| >> working. However when I look in my system properties,
| it
| >> shows the speed for only one processor (1.4MHz).
| >
| >Which is what I would expect, no need to show it for
| both processors since
| >you aren't allowed to run with two processors of
| different speeds and 1.4GHz
| >is the actual clock speed for a an XP 1600
| >
| >
| >> Should I see better performance since I have 2
| processors?
| >
| >Do you mean that you are expecting the system properties
| to show something
| >other than the 1.4GHz, i.e. two processors should show
| aup as 2.8GHz, if
| >that's what you mean, then the answer is no. If you mean
| a more general
| >question of whether a dual CPU system is faster than an
| a single CPU system
| >(at the same clock speed) then the general answer is
| yes, though the
| >difference in an individual application will vary
| greatly depending on
| >whether the application is optimized for multiple CPUs.
| >
| >
| >--
| >--
| >Nik Simpson
| >
| >
| >.
| >

 

[Nik Simpson]

Nik,

Thanks for your e-mail. Both of the processors are the
same speed, so it should be allowed?

I read that XP pro supported 2 processors so I expected
to see performance close to the sum of the 2 processors:
1.4GHz + 1.4GHz ~ 2.8GHz.

Unfortunately that's a bit simplified, if you are familiar with electrical
batteries, think of the difference between placing batteries in series vs.
in parralel. In series, two 1.5V batteris give you 3V output but the same
current, in parralel they give you 1.5V, but higher current. Multi-CPU
systems are more akin to batteries in parralel.

So how does XP support a 2 processor motherboard? Does
it automatically assign one of them to background
processes and the other to applications?

The OS is divided into threads, for example networking might be one thread,
disk I/O might be another thread, similarly an application represents at
least one thread (and if optimized for multiple CPUs) it may offer several
execution threads. The OS then keeps a queue of threads that are waiting for
access to a CPU and assigns them to a free CPU when one becomes available.
This is something of a simplification of the design principles of an SMP
(symmetric multi-processor OS) but it should give you the general idea.

Or did I waste my money in upgrading from XP Home to XP
pro?

Not at all, after all, you need for your dual CPU motherboard. A better
question is whether you needed the dual CPU motherboard in the first place
;-) That question is hard to answer without knowing the nature of the work
you do on the system.

 

[Guest]

Nik,

Thanks for your e-mails. The analogy you gave was
GREAT! - Greg.

Also, for those of you reading this and are new to this
forum, DO NOT USE YOUR E-MAIL. I learned the hard way.

After posting my message using my e-mail, I have received
at leaset 30 different e-mails with a virus attached.
Lots of other e-mail with questionalble content. Had to
shutdown that e-mail name.

 

[Greg Surratt]

Greg,

I've discovered that with my hyper-threaded 2.6 processor, that I
really see no advantage with most applications.

I use Norton System Works and Motherboard Monitor to watch processor
usage.

While cleaning music files with CoolEdit Pro, I typically see one
processor running at 80%, the second running at 20% and the
combination at around 60%. So I feel I'm not getting full use out of
the system.

OTOH, I can open a second instance of CoolEdit Pro and start another
batch file running and get both processors up to 100%. Each process
runs a little bit slower, but overall, I'm accomplishing almost twice
as much work in the same amount of time.

Also, if I turn off hyperthreading to do scene splitting in Pinnacle
Studio 8, I see 100% processor usage on the single processor, but
there is no time gain over the hyper-threading processors running at
approximately 55%.

<the other> Greg