W2K & Hyperthreading w/ Intel

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

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?
--
Thomas Peter v B
5 answers Last reply
More about hyperthreading intel
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

    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


    --
    Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

    http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

    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.

    "Steve Parry [MVP]" wrote:

    > 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
    >
    >
    > --
    > Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
    >
    > http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
    >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

    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:

    > 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.
    >
    > "Steve Parry [MVP]" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
    >>
    >>http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
    >>
    >>
    >>
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

    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" wrote:

    > 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:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    > > "Steve Parry [MVP]" wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>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
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
    > >>
    > >>http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

    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.

    Thomas wrote:

    > 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" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>>
    >>>"Steve Parry [MVP]" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>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
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
Ask a new question

Read More

Processors Intel Windows XP Windows