Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Windows XP 32bit home edition w/ 8 cores?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 27, 2011 11:57:24 PM

I think the answer is already no, I need xp professtional.
But can anyone tell me if a 8 core bulldozer or a Phenom II X6 would work with Windows XP 32bit home edition?

Best solution

a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 12:30:14 AM

Microsoft redefined the terms for their operating systems. They don't count cores, but rather "CPUs". You can't run the Home versions on a system with more than two CPUs. As far as I know, those CPUs can have as many cores as you like.

I would upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit, rather than stick to XP 32 bit, though.
Share
a c 85 à CPUs
June 28, 2011 1:10:46 AM

It will work just fine. A newer OS will have a better thread scheduler so you'll see improvements with win7. But you can use XP 32bit with a 64bit CPU.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 28, 2011 2:25:32 AM

Best answer selected by zankuto.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 7:22:48 AM

Works just fine :sol:  I know from first hand experience having a 1090t and running a dual boot with Win7 x64 for newer things, and WinXP Home for older things that won't run on I Vista/7 let alone on a 64bit OS (still likes to boot up Sid M's Alpha Centauri, and Vampire Bloodlines every once in a while).

And my experience has been that the scheduler on XP works better than Vista/7. Vista/7 thread scheduler keeps constantly bouncing threads between inactive cores playing hell with performance if C&Q is enabled, and for whatever reason won't let me set proper affinity on single threaded games and apps. In fact on Win7 so far, I've yet to see the turbo function work, except for rare glimpses of one core going up to just about 3.5ghz a couple times while watching AMD overdrive numbers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 2:28:41 PM

Why on Earth would you WANT to run 32bit Xp with a 8 core bulldozer?????
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 12:56:32 AM

geekapproved said:
Why on Earth would you WANT to run 32bit Xp with a 8 core bulldozer?????


Morbid curiosity? :D 


Perhaps XP provides all the functionality needed, and the user is happy in 2GB of RAM, but needs a brutal amount of processing power? There are some applications which don't need much RAM, but benefit from having a large number of simultaneous threads. Putting those threads onto lots of real cores will result in higher performance.

Perhaps the application won't run on Vista / Win7 without invoking "compatibility" hacks?

Perhaps the OP is taking a moral stance against paying any more money to Microsoft?

There are plenty of possible reasons.
m
0
l
!