Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hyperthreading and Windows 2000

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 27, 2002 11:33:02 PM

All the talk is about the new P4's with hyperthreading and frankly I can't wait to get my hands on one. However, I'm using Windows 2000. Should I switch to Windows XP when I get my new P4?

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 12:03:32 AM

of course not, thats not an obligation, why?
simply because they have the same Kernel.
what's the difference? only the lay out (plus some gadgets you can have by downloading.).


i've plugged my fingers into ? :cool: ? (or/&) <b>under</b> <b>?</b> :smile: <b>?</b> that Greek agora ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Corsair3200 on 10/27/02 09:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 28, 2002 12:37:15 AM

But I like gadgets! :smile: I was just curious if there was any difference between the two. I have WinXP but I never installed it. I've been using Win2k since, well, 2000 and am happy with it. I don't want to change if I don't have to.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
Related resources
October 28, 2002 12:41:55 AM

You will need to if you want all the hyped optimizations. WinXP is the only one to properly recognize logical processors and properly use the multithreading capability.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 12:51:25 AM

EDEN, you are an ASS! you didn't, don't & willn't understand anything in Informatics through out the tech's knowledge. go back to your plantations of cactus. :smile: ... or whatever...


i've plugged my fingers into ? :cool: ? (or/&) <b>under</b> <b>?</b> :smile: <b>?</b> that Greek agora ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 12:55:08 AM

 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Corsair3200 on 10/27/02 09:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 12:55:37 AM

for whos they aren't understanding yet, Windows XP is a Microsoft Propaganda. :lol:  for the others.


i've plugged my fingers into ? :cool: ? (or/&) <b>under</b> <b>?</b> :smile: <b>?</b> that Greek agora ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?
October 28, 2002 12:57:18 AM

Corsair if you will start with your gibberish and name-calling, I assure you Fredi is not out of reach, I contacted him today to remove a thread and he did so within a half hour, you are next if you start, ok?

You better be more clear, explain why you think I am wrong, rather than call me an a$$.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 1:03:18 AM

whenever! whatsoever! ASSS!


i've plugged my fingers into ? :cool: ? (or/&) <b>under</b> <b>?</b> :smile: <b>?</b> that Greek agora ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?
October 28, 2002 1:14:28 AM

Have it your way, you are going down, under the name of THGC's sane users!

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 2:48:44 AM

Thanks for your input, Eden. If you or anyone else can explain the difference, with regard to hyperthreading, between these two OS's that would be greatly appreciated.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
October 28, 2002 12:44:48 PM

Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) does not support hyperthreading and will only detect one logical processor instead of two. Windows XP (NT 5.1) is a new kernel with hyperthreading support.

- JW
October 28, 2002 1:09:15 PM

if you look at the version info. Windows 2000 is version 5.0 and windows XP PRO is verison 5.1.

Just so you can get an idea of how little difference there is.

I only went with windows xp because my PDA sync program kept crashing with windows 2000 and tech support told me i had a driver problem? ... so i switched to xp and it worked. Other than the different look which you can turn off everything it's practicly win2k with bug fixes. However with MS you fix a bug and 4 more pop up so they need to release SPs'.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 28, 2002 1:13:12 PM

my understanding of hyperthreading is that it acts like a dual processor.

So any operating system with dual processor support should be supported.

win NT 4.0
win 2k
win xp PRO (NOT HOME edition)
unix/linux

all have native multiprocessing support.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 28, 2002 1:17:49 PM

If you own a P4 you should use Windows XP anyway, since winxp is the only windows OS which is P4 optimized.

Now with HT, you even have one more reason to upgrade to XP since its the only windows version supporting HT (apart from Windows .NET betas)

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by vacs on 10/28/02 12:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 28, 2002 1:36:26 PM

Yes XP have feature for HT that 2000 dont have unlike some have say.YOu can look in the boards i have put a link to MS windows under HT CPU MS explain the difference between 2000 and XP

Now what to do??
October 28, 2002 5:06:30 PM

There are several other threads on Hyperthreading in these very forums, look into them, I and many others have elaborated many times on how other OS's asside from WinXP will react to a HT-enabled processor.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 28, 2002 5:52:52 PM

Quote:
I have WinXP but I never installed it. I've been using Win2k since, well, 2000 and am happy with it. I don't want to change if I don't have to.

Well, BC, WinXP is basically just the next version of Win2k. Make the jump man. For quite a while I had WinXP Pro at home and was still using Win2k at work. Couldn't wait to upgrade my work machine. The System Restore feature alone is worth the cost of admission.
October 28, 2002 6:01:59 PM

I thought Win2k had SysRestore?

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 6:06:04 PM

Microsoft has had Win9X with versions 4.x, yet there was quite a difference from Win95 A to WinME as far as I am concerned, so we're not talking little difference just because the version number is a tenth higher.

Hyperthreading is NOT like Dual Processing, it is close but isn't. Dual Processing is 2 CPUs making the job with THEIR OWN execution units, Hyperthreading is simply making sure the 6 execution units of the P4 are used more often, as Intel claims they are only 35% used on average. Naturally TWO P4 Xeons with HT would mean that not only both contribute to processing but each uses his own units even further, thus you could get up to twice more throughput.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 6:22:46 PM

ya but if you had to explain it the easiest way to explain it is that it acts like dual processing. key word is acts.
So ya it's close and it's the easiest way to explain it to someone who doens't know much about computers.

Plus that was my understanding of it and HT is new so.
*shrugs*

but thanks for the input! So then in reality it just makes sure it uses it's 6 execution units where before it didn't? sounds like a hardware bug fix with a fancy name don't it?



Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 28, 2002 6:47:39 PM

ROFL, that's ok, it's your opinion and you stated why you think so, therefore I respect that!

Then again you are a music enthusiast so I can see a trace somewhere to why you are very disk space-sensitive and preservative, so good for you!

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 6:53:03 PM

Actually it's not a bug. As most would tell you here, especially imgod2u who vocally stated it many times, it's the x86 architecture which simply isn't much tailored for parallelism. Therefore in the P4's case where it already has low IPC, a good portion goes unused because there are many cases like branch mispredictions, latency, data dependencies which cause pipeline bubbles, (which probably are even more significant if the schedulers are weak). This is where the K7 shines, it has 9 units, 50% more than P4, so there is a bit more parallelism, hence why the P4 desperatly needs HT's help. The K7 most likely can use 5 of its units on average, that is about 80% of the P4's. If Intel states on average they are 35% at capacity, you know that the P4 has so much hindered potential. Of course, if you've thought about it as I did, K7+HT=Deadly weapon. I would not doubt it and am sure that if AMD gets their success in the server market, yanks some cash for R&D, they'd be doing the right thing investing into their own multithreading support, as it would probably yeild higher average performance boosts than the P6 core.

It's not easy explaining it to someone indeed, and you could use that explanation you said. I would say more like, it makes sure the processor is more efficient when operating.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 8:11:38 PM

Indeed, there are other HT threads out there that contain the info you need. But for the record, to make full use of HT, you need WinXP because, as Eden and others have mentioned, it's the only Windows OS (apart from the "special" versions of Windows, like .NET betas) that properly handles logical CPU's as well as properly handling multi-threading.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
October 28, 2002 8:12:58 PM

Hi Black_Cat,

I agree with Eden here. If you look at Intel's documentation on Hyperthreading they will only list Windows XP versions of OS for it's support. You may be able to run windows 2000 on the P4 with HT, but I think you wouldn't get the full potential of HT without Windows XP. Also Windows XP has some SSE2 optimization which will enable some more preformance boost. So it would be best for you to make the jump right now. Sooner better then later.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
October 29, 2002 5:13:22 AM

I have more audio codecs than music files. See what kind of music enthusiast I am. I keep few music files for experimenting with various audio codecs. I barely listen to music.

Actually I am a compression enthusiast. I like to compress everying to hell to save disk space. I built this habit in the days when I had only a 13 gig HD and lots of things to store in HD. Now I have added a 40 gig HD, but I still have this old habit.

What Audio Compression Technology you use for storing music? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"> Tell Here</A>
!