W2K & Hyperthreading w/ Intel

[Guest]

JUST CURIOUS: Installed dual hyperthreaded 2.8 Xeon processors in a
workstation w/ W2K as the O/S. System (F1) shows "Xeon 2.8GHZ 512KB Cache"
BUT the Intel Processor utility app shows no hyperthreading. Does anyone
know why W2K Pro won't enable the hyperthreading function when XP Pro has no
problem; that is, technically, what is missing in W2K Pro that XP Pro has
built-in?

 

[Steve Parry [MVP]]

Thomas fumbled, fiddled and fingered:

JUST CURIOUS: Installed dual hyperthreaded 2.8 Xeon processors in a
workstation w/ W2K as the O/S. System (F1) shows "Xeon 2.8GHZ 512KB
Cache" BUT the Intel Processor utility app shows no hyperthreading.
Does anyone know why W2K Pro won't enable the hyperthreading function
when XP Pro has no problem; that is, technically, what is missing in
W2K Pro that XP Pro has built-in?

Is it enabled in the BIOS? The Dells we've had have had it disabled from
the factory and it needs to be enabled by altering the setting in the
BIOS

 

[Guest]

Thank you, Steve. However, as I noted, when I access the configuration set
up (F1) on the IBM Intellistation, it shows the DUAL xeon 2.8s "enabled"; the
512MB cache "enabled", and that it is Hyperthreaded "enabled". However, the
Intel Processor ID Utility (an appl. available @ Intel's website) reads:
"Hyperthreading: NO". So I contacted Intel and THEY said Win 2000 Pro "...
is not optimized for hyperthreading". I asked what "optimized" meant
figuring it might still work, but not completely. The Intel rep curtly
replied "not optimized means it won't work w/ that O/S".
I simply cannot figure out what is different about W2K Pro and XP Pro
with respect to the multi-tasking feature of hyperthreading.

 

[Bob I]

In a nutshell, Win2000 "can't" tell the difference between 2 real
processors and 1 HT one, therefor any tech support is going to tell you
it won't work because it wasn't designed to play with HT and sometimes
the system "loses performance" because it is treating the HT as two full
processors. Now if they said it would work you would get PO'ed when it
didn't. SO the official stance is NO, reality is SOMETIMES, and bottom
line is that it should be called HYPErthreading for all the good it does.

 

[Guest]

Dear Bob:
Thankyou. That is a bit more technically factual. Since the
Intellistation has 2 xeon processors, to begin with, the whole Intel hype is
even less convincing. I suspected so and yet wondered why Win 2K Pro (which I
prefer over XP Pro [shhhh]) was not going to be able to run it. The degree
of so-called diminished performance is a joke unless I was sending a probe to
Mars. It has not yet exhibited any signs of conflict or quirky performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
Thomas

 

[Bob I]

That's why I put it in quotes, you would likely only find it in
benchmarks given the tasks most users put the PC's thru.

Dear Bob:
Thankyou. That is a bit more technically factual. Since the
Intellistation has 2 xeon processors, to begin with, the whole Intel hype is
even less convincing. I suspected so and yet wondered why Win 2K Pro (which I
prefer over XP Pro [shhhh]) was not going to be able to run it. The degree
of so-called diminished performance is a joke unless I was sending a probe to
Mars. It has not yet exhibited any signs of conflict or quirky performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
Thomas

:

In a nutshell, Win2000 "can't" tell the difference between 2 real
processors and 1 HT one, therefor any tech support is going to tell you
it won't work because it wasn't designed to play with HT and sometimes
the system "loses performance" because it is treating the HT as two full
processors. Now if they said it would work you would get PO'ed when it
didn't. SO the official stance is NO, reality is SOMETIMES, and bottom
line is that it should be called HYPErthreading for all the good it does.

Thomas wrote: