only one processor of my dualcore chip is working in vista 64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, Feb 10, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Sorry Guys 'It ain't necessarily so'

    6Gb memory
    2x Opteron 248

    XP Pro
    device manager - 2x CPU
    task manager - 2x CPU graph - View:CPU History: can select 1 or 2 cpu graph

    Vista HP
    device manager - 2x CPU
    task manager - 1x CPU graph - View:CPU History:1 graph per CPU,
    is either already selected or is greyed out
    depending on which way the wind is blowing, & can't change it

    also when run
    Vista - control panel - performance information & tools - advanced tools
    - 'generate a system health report'

    it reports only 1x CPU
    under: Hardware config - devices - motherrboard classes - win32 processor
    under: report statistics

    so if XP reports OK then must be Vista ??

    anyone any ideas ??

    machine feels slower in vista
    Guest, Feb 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    Which version of Vista are you using? AFAIK, only Business, Enterprise, and
    Ultimate support multiple physical CPUs.

    - Aaron
    Aaron Kelley, Feb 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Home editions of Vista (and XP) only support a single physical processor. If
    you're going to compare, you need to compare equivalent editions.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 15, 2007
  4. "Vista HP" - Home Premium. Single CPU.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 15, 2007
  5. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Home editions of Vista (and XP) only support a single physical processor. If
    Huh -- didn't know that -- no surprise with Vista Basic, but I would
    have thought that Home Premium would support (recognize and use) dual
    core CPU's. --
    BSchnur, Feb 15, 2007
  6. Guest

    John E Guest


    "So what about dual-core CPUs? That's different. All Vista versions, even
    the lowly Home Basic, support multiple cores on a single chip, with no
    additional configuration required."
    John E, Feb 15, 2007
  7. Guest

    Theo Guest

    Dual-core, yes! One (1) CPU with 2 or more cores.

    Dual CPUs, NO! Two or more individual CPUs, regardless of
    the core count per CPU.
    Theo, Feb 15, 2007
  8. Dual core? Certainly. Quad core? yes, those too. Just not two PHYSICAL
    processors. MS counts sockets. Not cores.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 15, 2007
  9. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Ah -- OK -- that works and makes sense.

    Frankly the multiple physical processor motherboards really only have
    two major uses -- high power servers (when Vista server shows up), and
    high power workstations (running either Business, Enterprise, or
    BSchnur, Feb 15, 2007
  10. Correct. Though there are home users who could utilize all the power of a
    dual-opteron or dual-xeon motherboard, they are also the users for whom
    Ultimate is an appropriate SKU. For the rest of us, dual processor (and
    beyond) mobos are really for servers and high-end workstations.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 16, 2007
  11. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Correct. Though there are home users who could utilize all the power of a
    Right, any home user who utilizes a dual-opteron is running it as a
    server or a high end workstation or a testosterone replacement.

    Opteron's are heavy duty CPU's -- lots of power, lots of watts, lots of
    heat. They can go in a gamer's PC as long as they have a separate
    circuit and are willing to use a 750 Watt power supply <smile>.
    BSchnur, Feb 16, 2007
  12. Hey, I resemble that remark. :)

    Seriously, you want heat? Try a pair of those old Xeons! I still have a Dell
    Workstation with Dual 550 Xeons. I can heat the house with it. The Opterons
    are nothing compared to that. (Just replacing a single core Athlon64 3200+
    this weekend with a dual core Opteron 175. And bumping the RAM on that box
    from 2 GB to 4. )

    Now the new Xeon 51xx? They're a lot nicer.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 16, 2007
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    so the concensus of opinion is :
    should have bought Ultimate if I want to run 2x physical CPU
    Home Premium is OK for 1x physical CPU (single or dual core)

    thanks very much to all

    will go and dig deeper into my pockets
    Guest, Feb 16, 2007
  14. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    The older Intel chips ran really hot once they got pushed past 2.4GHz.
    The older AMD XP's were hot as well and due to the low exposed die
    size, tended to overheat more. When AMD went first to the 754, and
    then the 939 and AM2 footprint, they ran a lot cooler. The Opterons
    are sort of an exception -- they have the large heat sink footprint,
    but instead of 89W (or the newer 65W AM2 designs), they are something
    like 110W. The thing is, they are built very well -- so over clockers
    have a field day *provided* they have very good heat sink and air flow
    AND have a very solid power source. Folks trying to extend the life of
    their SLI 939 boards, slip in Opteron Dual cores and then over clock
    them. They do this with pushed $500+ video cards. The smart ones have
    a HEAVY duty power supply and cooling.

    Right now, the fastest CPU's I deploy are 65W 4600X2. Later this year
    I may dabble in Intel, say a system based on the E4300 CPU -- if I can
    find the right motherboard match for it.
    BSchnur, Feb 16, 2007
  15. Business also supports 2 physical CPUs.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 17, 2007
  16. I'm now buying primarily Intel CPUs, having been an early adopter of socket
    939 CPUs and having several here. In fact, one of them is getting swapped
    out for an Opteron 175 next week. (It's a single core 3200+ and it's
    gasping, so time for dual cores and more cache.) But if I am buying a
    desktop processor right now, it is Intel. They've jumped ahead. And my two
    servers coming this month are both dual 51xx Xeons. The tests are pretty
    conclusively in favour of Intel, I'm afraid. Now if I were building a 4 or 8
    way monster, I wouldn't hesitate to go with an Opteron. Their memory
    architecture is much better, especially as they add processors.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 17, 2007
  17. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    I'm now buying primarily Intel CPUs, having been an early adopter of socket
    Makes sense -- for lower end systems, I still like the AM2 (pricing for
    the 65W 3800X2, 4200X2 and 4600X at Fryes with a decent motherboard
    make that a 'smart buy'). But I'm looking seriously at the Intel Core
    Duo CPU's. Fry's has had them in combos -- but the most attractively
    priced combos are coming with seriously dumb motherboards (saw one
    yesterday D940 with motherboard for $180 -- but the motherboard had
    only 2 slots and supported up to 533). Like I said, seriously stupid.

    I figure when I try out the decent Intel duo core CPU's, I owe it to
    the evaluation to match it with a motherboard that supports at least
    667 (ideally 800), has 4 slots and is capable of support 4G (probably

    The thing is, for the Intel's we're talking close to $100 for the
    motherboard supporting that memory handling. A bit less for 4G of RAM
    as a top side.

    With the AM2 processor, boards supporting that combination can be had
    for $60 -- so that's part of the total cost to be considered.
    BSchnur, Feb 17, 2007
  18. Avoid Core Duo like the plague. What you want and need are "Core 2 Duo". Far
    better, lower energy, and all round faster. Plus they're 64-bit.

    Which is not to say that I don't have a Core Duo - I do, a D940 bought when
    it was a reasonable choice. But I wouldn't go near it today.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 17, 2007
  19. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    OK -- thanks for the heads up -- so you are suggesting something like
    the E4300 or E6300 instead of the D940. Good to know.
    BSchnur, Feb 17, 2007
  20. Yes, though I haven't actually locked in on which series is which at this
    point - I've been focused on Xeons which are 5xxx - and I'm only interested
    in the 51xx or above there. But if I remember correctly, the better chip
    range was the 6xxx. Wasn't the 4xxx the lower end versions? (I _never_
    suggest going with lower end series of Intel chips. Better to go with the
    better series, but a lower number in that series if you're trying to save
    money. )
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.