P-4 3E appears to have two "cores"...

[Guest]

I mistakenly "posted" this on the Media Center forum before I realized what
I'd done.. so "one more time" herer, whre its supposed to be (I think..)

I've never claimed to be the original computer "wizard", but I have something
that totally confuses me.
I've "rebuilt" my boss's PC for him (new,larger HDD and faster "chip") and
reloaded Windows XP Pro SP2 on this - but as I was doing a "burn-in"
something "peculiar" showed up that I am unable to explain...
The SiSandra software I was using for 'burning in" apparently shows me two
processor cores on this system which is simply a P-4 3.0 GHz single core
processor...(???).
(At least that's what I thought the box said....Pentium 4 3E 800Mhz FSB 1 MB
L2 cache socket 478 - yup, that's what it says, alright, right there on the
box...)
Thinking something was amiss (software-wise with SiSandra), I shut down the
"burn-in" and looked at Windows' own "System Information" from the
Accessories group ..., and it also shows what would appear to be two
processors when I examine the "System Summary".
I see two listings for "Processor", each indicates:
"x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 1 GenuineIntel ~3000Mhz", one directly
after the previous.
Well,this boggles me.... What the heck?
I've done a thousand installs of Windows and NEVER seen anything like quite
like this...
This is a "brand new" install of Windows I did just last night (with
apparently no "issues" during installation) from a "brand new" XP Pro disk.
This system has two 512MB DDR-400 DIMMS installed and a single Seagate 80 GB
SATA disk on an MSI PM8M-V integrated motherboard.
Anyone have a clue as to what I'm encountering here? Bad M/B? This M/B is
less than 45 days "old" but it COULD be bad, I suppose... I mean, it WORKS,
y'know?...
Everything SEEMS to work flawlessly but (being the anal-retentive that I am)
things like this "disturb" me....
Clues anyone?

 

[R. McCarty]

The chip employs HyperThreading - While a single "Physical" Core, it
operates as two CPUs and Windows uses a HAL ( Hardware Abstraction
Layer - or Computer Driver) defined as a "Multiprocessor ACPI......."
Intel's website that describes HT in detail:
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/

 

[antioch]

I mistakenly "posted" this on the Media Center forum before I realized what
I'd done.. so "one more time" herer, whre its supposed to be (I think..)

I've never claimed to be the original computer "wizard", but I have
something
that totally confuses me.
I've "rebuilt" my boss's PC for him (new,larger HDD and faster "chip") and
reloaded Windows XP Pro SP2 on this - but as I was doing a "burn-in"
something "peculiar" showed up that I am unable to explain...
The SiSandra software I was using for 'burning in" apparently shows me two
processor cores on this system which is simply a P-4 3.0 GHz single core
processor...(???).
(At least that's what I thought the box said....Pentium 4 3E 800Mhz FSB 1
MB
L2 cache socket 478 - yup, that's what it says, alright, right there on
the
box...)
Thinking something was amiss (software-wise with SiSandra), I shut down
the
"burn-in" and looked at Windows' own "System Information" from the
Accessories group ..., and it also shows what would appear to be two
processors when I examine the "System Summary".
I see two listings for "Processor", each indicates:
"x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 1 GenuineIntel ~3000Mhz", one directly
after the previous.
Well,this boggles me.... What the heck?
I've done a thousand installs of Windows and NEVER seen anything like
quite
like this...
This is a "brand new" install of Windows I did just last night (with
apparently no "issues" during installation) from a "brand new" XP Pro
disk.
This system has two 512MB DDR-400 DIMMS installed and a single Seagate 80
GB
SATA disk on an MSI PM8M-V integrated motherboard.
Anyone have a clue as to what I'm encountering here? Bad M/B? This M/B is
less than 45 days "old" but it COULD be bad, I suppose... I mean, it
WORKS,
y'know?...
Everything SEEMS to work flawlessly but (being the anal-retentive that I
am)
things like this "disturb" me....
Clues anyone?

That is strange - I had one of those - a Prescott and I am certain it was
not dual core - it was EM64T I think.
Antioch