Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hexacore on XP

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
December 31, 2010 1:27:31 AM



Is XP capable enough of handling a HEXACORE CPU ?

I hv often seen that opening too many applictions simultaneously also does not bring all the 6 cores into action, while I was expecting that if you have more applications running, more cores will automatically take over but it should be directed by the OS.


But looks like it does not happen, not at least with XP.

More about : hexacore

December 31, 2010 6:28:03 AM

XP isn't for modern hardware... it's very nearly a decade old. Yes, I realize there are diehards out there that still have huge digital wood over it, but it's on it's way out. Yes, MS will still support it for the near forseeable future... but as we get closer to Windows 8, hardware and software vendors will start completely ignoring XP the way they ignore 9x now.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2010 7:53:57 AM

XP is just fine with 6 cores.

XP is perfectly modern Zoron. MS didn't release it and ignore it. It was continually updated until recently and continues to receive security updates. It also holds about 50 percent of the OS market so the odds of it getting ignored anytime soon are slim to none. And it holds that huge market share for a reason, its the best MS OS ever.

The people with "huge digital wood" are the 7 advocates. There is little of consequence that vista or 7 can do that XP can't. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is not a good reason to spend money. I realize some people just have to have the latest tech just for the sake of feeling cool, but that doesn't make sense for most people.

Yes, it will eventually become dated. But that day is a looong way off still.

And I speak as someone who owns a license for 7 ultimate and still chose XP for my new build.
Related resources
December 31, 2010 1:39:24 PM

No DX10 or 11... no TRIM support... and no IE 9. Not a modern OS by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, when building a new computer you have to purchase an OS anyway... unless you happen to have a retail copy or extra license laying around. To best support fancy new hardware, you pretty much have to go with Windows 7. XP will work, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice.
December 31, 2010 2:46:32 PM



Also, is XP intelligent enough to allocate the work between 6 cores? Is there any special software which can be installed on it to assist.

a b à CPUs
December 31, 2010 6:55:31 PM

Zoron said:
No DX10 or 11... no TRIM support... and no IE 9. Not a modern OS by any stretch of the imagination......


Really? No OS other than VISTA or 7 have DX or IE. So neither Linux or the Mac or any other OS for that matter are modern in your mind? That is frighteningly weak logic. So I question your logic AND your imagination.

The only significant difference between XP, Vista, and 7 at this juncture is the bells and whistles MS piled on the NT6 platforms. Throwing more frosting and candles on the cake doesn't make it a better cake. Just makes it look cool.

Quote:
Besides, when building a new computer
you have to purchase an OS anyway... unless you happen to have a retail copy or extra license laying around. To best support fancy new hardware, you pretty much have to go with Windows 7. XP will work, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice.


I would buy 7 if I was buying a new OS, but lots of people who build systems have an OS lying around. And if I am not mistaken, the poster already installed XP which answers that question for us. He would be an upgrade, and I for one dont think its worth it at this juncture.

XP can and will support new hardware just fine. The only thing XP will lack for the next 5 years is MS support, other than security updates. By which point, most versions of 7 lose MS support as well, mainstream and extended.

7 is fluff. If fluff is your thing, then by all means get it. Otherwise, its not needed.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2010 7:12:38 PM

asheesh1_2000 said:
Also, is XP intelligent enough to allocate the work between 6 cores? Is there any special software which can be installed on it to assist.


7 is marginally better as this function than XP. But this is not exclusively an OS function. And 6 cores is a lot of power. You may not be pressing the gas pedal as hard as you think. I have trouble loading 4 cores. Keep in mind that they have to wait for other things as well such as hard disk and memory access.

Try stress testing the cpu with something like multiple instances of prime 95. If that doesn't do the trick, then something is wrong.
January 1, 2011 3:13:55 AM



Does it all mean that the 6 core technology (AMD , intel) and 12 or more Virtual cores (intel) are presently useless for current work/home users ?


Then why all the hype about so many cores... It is feeling that me and all those who buy anything more then TRI- or Quad are wasting their money ?

January 1, 2011 5:11:01 PM

It's not a total waste of money... but it also doesn't help as much as the chip vendors would have you believe. Very few programs are multi-threaded... and in order to take full advantage of multiple cores / CPUs, you need a multi-threaded program.

All is not lost, however. A program that is CPU intensive can still be run on a separate core all by itself. Having more cores available lets you run more CPU intensive tasks at once. They can't take full advantage of the multi-core environment... but at least having the extra cores isn't a total waste. You have to manually set processor affinity for programs that aren't intelligent enough to do it themselves.

One other thing... if you plan on going with 4GB+ of RAM, then 64-bit is the way to go and I can't really recommend 64-bit XP. If you're going 64-bit, then 7 is definately the OS you would want to go with.
January 1, 2011 6:15:25 PM

You only think you're using DX10 on XP. The project was abadoned long ago and never completed. The best they could manage was a wrapper... something to map DX10 calls to DX9. Unless you can provide some sort of evidence to the contrary, you're simply blowing smoke. Just because the text in DXDiag says DX10, doesn't mean it is so.
January 1, 2011 7:05:49 PM

Zoron said:
You have to manually set processor affinity for programs that aren't intelligent enough to do it themselves.

.



How do u manually set the affinity..?
a c 472 à CPUs
January 1, 2011 7:47:56 PM

asheesh1_2000 said:
Does it all mean that the 6 core technology (AMD , intel) and 12 or more Virtual cores (intel) are presently useless for current work/home users ?


Then why all the hype about so many cores... It is feeling that me and all those who buy anything more then TRI- or Quad are wasting their money ?


What exactly are you going to use the PC for?

The programs you use must be programmed to take advantage of all the cores. Most office applications probably will only use two core at best such as MS Office or Open Office. I'm sure there are databases out there that can use more than two cores, but are you gonna be using them especially since some of them cost $100k to implement and is a tad bit overkill for home use.

Games are currently programmed to use 3 cores at most, but I'm sure a few games using 4 cores are on the horizon. Anandtech did an article about multi-core games in mid 2010, and basically found that those games which do use 3 cores had on average a 15% gain in performance I believe, but nothing was gained from the 4th core. Don't know when games using 5 or 6 cores will come out, but I'm sure before then you will itching to upgrade again.

I think buying a 6 core CPU is a waste. The only program that I use which stresses all 4 core in my Q9450 is Handbrake which I use to encode video. That's it.

If you got money to burn, then just buy a quad core CPU and dump the rest into a better video card.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2011 11:04:14 PM

Quote:


xp are problem for microsoft they can't get rid of. They're trying to. Forcing people onto modern hardware are they're game and they leave their fellow hardware partners happy.


Exactly right. The needless windows 7 upgrade puts money in their pocket.
January 2, 2011 2:42:18 PM

Like it or not, technology changes... whether for the good or bad, it doesn't really matter. Change / advancement is inevitable. If you have XP and you're making use of it... then great... but I will never recommend that anyone purchasing a new computer to install XP. (If you have an extra copy or license around then it's a different story). Recommending an old OS for a new computer is a bit of a disservice in my opinion.

Call it a money-making conspiracy if you wish... but that's the way it goes. Most people running Linux aren't running 8 year-old kernels and even MacOS gets updated once in a while. MS either keeps up with technology or gets left behind. There are plenty of companies out there that can fill the gaps.

XP wasn't designed with the new technologies we have today in mind. Back then home computers had 1 processor with the odd enthusiast having two. Even most business computers other than high-end workstations and servers had only one processor. XP does use multiple cores but 7 is better at it.

Quote:
Phil Taylor, Senior Program Manager of the Flight Sim team at Microsoft says that projects such as the FallingLeafSystems have no chance whatsoever to make DirectX 10 work without DirectX 10 hardware. "FallingLeafSystems is claiming to enable DX10 on XP, and further, to quote the AlkyProject blog "No longer will you have to upgrade your OS and video card(s) to play the latest games." Can they make that work? Not at all. The FallingLeafSystems approach is to write a wrapper around the OpenGL extensions for DX10 class hardware that are already available on XP. And to claim this can work without proper hardware. That by itself means this isn't some monumental hack. No reverse engineering of DX10 is involved. What is involved is eyeballing the D3D10 API and mapping those calls to their OGL equivalent," Taylor commented.

In this manner Microsoft responded to announcements that Halo 2 and Shadowrun, Windows Vista exclusive gaming titles, have been cracked to work on Windows XP and that FallingLeafSystems will backport DirectX 10 to XP. Taylor explained that taking DirectX 10 back to XP would be equivalent with rewriting the operating system's kernel in order to be similar to Vista's.

"A couple key parts of the Vista kernel-WDDM driver work are GPU interruptability and GPU memory management. Yes, in Vista the OS is managing the GPU to make applications play nice, as opposed to the DX9 style "last application in owns the card" style. And 10.1 and 10.2 will expand on those capabilities with more fine-grained interruptability and GPU memory paging behaviors. So there is a lot of work left to do before this is anything like ready for prime time. And it should be pretty clear that without DX10 class hardware this approach is doomed to failure. So that limits it out of the box," Taylor added.

As a conclusion Taylor revealed his circumspection over if backporting DirectX 10 to XP would work at all. Instead he said "full DX10 support requires Vista. There is no such thing as a free lunch."


I don't doubt that there are a lot of claims flying around concerning DX10 on XP. The fact remains that it (the Alky project) is an abandoned project. They released the source code once they gave up, but I have seen no evidence that anyone has done anything with it other than design a fancy installer. I can't find any information on it that isn't at least 2 or 3 years old. I have to seriously wonder about the validity of any of the claims when the original project was abandoned and it was never fully functional.
January 3, 2011 5:00:02 AM



How does a Linux behave on Hexacore?
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2011 10:31:54 PM

XP is faster. No doubt in my mind. And I have them running side by side.
January 7, 2011 11:49:54 PM

Linux will handle hexacore quite nicely... seeing as how Linux is better at multitasking than Windows. If you're a Linux fan and you know your way around it, then it's a great choice... but it's not quite there for gaming. That's not to say that you can't game on Linux, it's just not as easy as it is in Windows.

^ I haven't noticed any more blue screens with XP than what's usual. The ones I have seen are due to faulty hardware more than anything else. XP still runs great on older hardware.
January 7, 2011 11:55:33 PM



Pretty pictures... but what hardware were those tests run on? Without that information, the graphs are useless and might as well have been drawn up at random. Besides, I didn't see XP "crushing" Vista or 7 in either of those tests. Synthetic benchmarks are as helpful an indication of real world performance as the Windows Experience Index.
January 8, 2011 12:54:31 AM

asheesh1_2000 said:
How do u manually set the affinity..?
Things that get overlooked....


Right-click the taskbar, select task mananger
Click Processes tab
Right-click process you are interested in,
select "set affinity" set as desired and click ok.









January 8, 2011 3:24:18 AM

tigsounds said:
Things that get overlooked....


Right-click the taskbar, select task mananger
Click Processes tab
Right-click process you are interested in,
select "set affinity" set as desired and click ok.



This is very interesting,, I hv one question here..


If I select only 1 cpu for a process and suppose it happens to me multithreaded, will it now still use only one CPU or it will automaticaly select the next CPU for itself ?




January 8, 2011 3:47:46 AM

asheesh1_2000 said:
This is very interesting,, I hv one question here..


If I select only 1 cpu for a process and suppose it happens to me multithreaded, will it now still use only one CPU or it will automaticaly select the next CPU for itself ?


It is supposed to behave as a lockout. I've seen but never used CPU monitor programs that can answer this positively. If you have any way of watching Task Monitor while the affected program is running, you can see what's happening in task monitor, to an extent. Click Performance tab, View, CPU history, one graph per CPU.

September 16, 2012 5:17:54 PM

FALC0N said:
XP is just fine with 6 cores.

XP is perfectly modern Zoron. MS didn't release it and ignore it. It was continually updated until recently and continues to receive security updates. It also holds about 50 percent of the OS market so the odds of it getting ignored anytime soon are slim to none. And it holds that huge market share for a reason, its the best MS OS ever.

The people with "huge digital wood" are the 7 advocates. There is little of consequence that vista or 7 can do that XP can't. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is not a good reason to spend money. I realize some people just have to have the latest tech just for the sake of feeling cool, but that doesn't make sense for most people.

Yes, it will eventually become dated. But that day is a looong way off still.

And I speak as someone who owns a license for 7 ultimate and still chose XP for my new build.



Let me ask, what kind of home user needs to have a 6 core, more less an 8 core processor for what they're doing that a 4 core wouldn't?
" I realize some people just have to have the latest tech just for the sake of feeling cool, but that doesn't make sense for most people."
What do you honestly think these processors are made for?
Let me guess, you're using an 8 core processor OC'd at 4.5 Ghz, and using it all, right? :sleep: 
September 20, 2012 7:26:48 AM

The home user who needs a 6 or 8 core processor is someone who does video encoding. If you do any video encoding, especially h264/avc encoding, then you will benefit from any extra cores, and speed.

I bought a new computer in 2010 with win7 ultimate, and it was crap, blurry text, pictures looked like gifs from 1985. I had used RC versions of 7 which had fine looking text and pictures. Anyway I removed that garbage, and slapped XP back on, and my hexacore cpu runs just fine.

I regularly max out all 6 cores at 99% to 100% while doing video encoding in XP.
!