PDA

View Full Version : 8KNXP and HT


Tim
July 23rd 03, 12:45 PM
Hi,
My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is working
correctly as it does not appear to.

Bios is F5.

Does anyone have any ideas?

- Tim

Tim
July 23rd 03, 11:38 PM
Yes. That is exactly what I am not seeing.
I check in Device Manager & as I said, there are 2 CPU's (really intel, who
is kidding who?).
The Computer in Device Manager says it is an ACPI Multi Processor PC, so XP
seems to have all the correct device drivers as far as I can see. Updating
the device driver for the Computer gives no options,which is correct as the
only update would be a downgrade to Uni or non-acpi which requires a
reinstall & is not a valid option...

The only anomoly is the Task Manager display. The menu for View -> CPU
History has only 1 entry: One Graph per CPU which is ticked. Normally I
think there are 2 items in this menu - a 1 graph and a 2 graph. XP SP 1 is
in, but not alot else of patches (where is SP2, must be due soon?).

- Tim




"Timothy Drouillard" > wrote in message
...
> Under the performance tab in Task manager, the top window should show two
> small windows side-by-side. one for each 'cpu'.
>
> is that what you're not seeing?
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> > My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
> > Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> > HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is
working
> > correctly as it does not appear to.
> >
> > Bios is F5.
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >
>
>

Bob Davis
July 24th 03, 04:22 AM
A friend had the same problem on his Asus mobo (same 875P chipset), and he
fixed it by enabling ACPI and reinstalling WinXP. Somehow the HT function
must tie in with ACPI, but neither of us have figured out the details of
this relationship. If anyone knows, please enlighten me!

On the 8KNXP I don't think you can even disable ACPI, and my PM settings are
all on the defaults that came with the F5 bios. Mine set up perfectly for
HT from the outset.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
> My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
> Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is working
> correctly as it does not appear to.
>
> Bios is F5.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
> - Tim
>
>

Timothy Drouillard
July 24th 03, 04:56 AM
The view menu should indeed have two choices

One Graph, all CPU's
One graph per CPU

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. That is exactly what I am not seeing.
> I check in Device Manager & as I said, there are 2 CPU's (really intel,
who
> is kidding who?).
> The Computer in Device Manager says it is an ACPI Multi Processor PC, so
XP
> seems to have all the correct device drivers as far as I can see. Updating
> the device driver for the Computer gives no options,which is correct as
the
> only update would be a downgrade to Uni or non-acpi which requires a
> reinstall & is not a valid option...
>
> The only anomoly is the Task Manager display. The menu for View -> CPU
> History has only 1 entry: One Graph per CPU which is ticked. Normally I
> think there are 2 items in this menu - a 1 graph and a 2 graph. XP SP 1 is
> in, but not alot else of patches (where is SP2, must be due soon?).
>
> - Tim
>
>
>
>
> "Timothy Drouillard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Under the performance tab in Task manager, the top window should show
two
> > small windows side-by-side. one for each 'cpu'.
> >
> > is that what you're not seeing?
> >
> > "Tim" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > > My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in
Device
> > > Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> > > HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is
> working
> > > correctly as it does not appear to.
> > >
> > > Bios is F5.
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any ideas?
> > >
> > > - Tim
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Tim
July 24th 03, 07:24 AM
Thanks Bob, so no easy fix then?

Well, my Device Manage config says ACPI Mult... and lists 2 CPU's... Odd, I
think I'll put this down to yet another Award bios oddity.

The only items in the bios I tinkered with prior to install was to get the
SATA boot disc recognised.

- Tim





"Bob Davis" > wrote in message
.. .
> A friend had the same problem on his Asus mobo (same 875P chipset), and he
> fixed it by enabling ACPI and reinstalling WinXP. Somehow the HT function
> must tie in with ACPI, but neither of us have figured out the details of
> this relationship. If anyone knows, please enlighten me!
>
> On the 8KNXP I don't think you can even disable ACPI, and my PM settings
are
> all on the defaults that came with the F5 bios. Mine set up perfectly
for
> HT from the outset.
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> > My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
> > Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> > HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is
working
> > correctly as it does not appear to.
> >
> > Bios is F5.
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >
>
>

Tim
July 24th 03, 10:41 AM
Good question.

Apart from wanting things to work correctly, I am used to dual CPU systems,
and it does seem that hyperthreading does smooth out the performance of an
otherwise single CPU systems.

Try an experiment. Run one copy of zip or rar on a large file. Then start
another rar / zip on a second file at the same time and watch the two CPU's
in task manager. Ok, so its a little bit of a visual lie... but I am sure
you can get my drift on this.

Now while this is running check the responsiveness of the machine by doing
something else. EG opening apps and typing.

I am sure you will find the system runs much smoother with HT. Some of this
is possibly attributable to XP with a higher spec CPU, but overall compared
to preceeding single CPU systems an HT system does seem to have much better
smoothness to it and that is a characteristic of a Dual.

Again, it may be just an illusion 'cos when the IDE channels get busy, the
system still runs like a dog - but this is much more difficult.

I am interested to hear what peoples experience is of SCSI on HT systems,
and the 8KNXP Ultra RAID.

BTW: I got it going by doing an XP repair.

- Tim



"Boudewijn" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
> Why bother?
> It's only useful if you're using software that it specifically written to
> make use of 2 CPU's
> Failing that and you could have 4, 8,16 etc CPU's in your box, and It
> wouldn't make a difference at all.
> So again, why bother?!
> Regards, Boudewijn
>
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> > My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
> > Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> > HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is
working
> > correctly as it does not appear to.
> >
> > Bios is F5.
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >
>
>

Bob Davis
July 24th 03, 02:36 PM
"Boudewijn" > wrote in message
...

> Why bother? It's only useful if you're using software that it
specifically written to
> make use of 2 CPU's


That's true, but more and more of these apps are being written. I for one
bought into HT (2.8C) because I use PhotoShop and Nikon Capture, both of
which can make use of dual-processor technology. The HT makes a dramatic
difference with these apps. My friend was concerned because he also works
in PS, plus a complex stock-analysis app that also uses it. He claims his
P4 3.0C runs the latter 3x faster than his old Athlon 1400XP.

John Yuen
July 25th 03, 12:19 AM
Wrong! There are so many benefit for having 2 cpus even when you don't use
program that take advantage of it. It allows you to multi-task with much better
response and performance. Rip/burn Cd/DVD in the background. Multiple download
form different program, etc, etc.

Regards
John Yuen

Boudewijn wrote:

> Hello,
> Why bother?
> It's only useful if you're using software that it specifically written to
> make use of 2 CPU's
> Failing that and you could have 4, 8,16 etc CPU's in your box, and It
> wouldn't make a difference at all.
> So again, why bother?!
> Regards, Boudewijn
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> > My 8KNXP system shows only 1 CPU in Task manager, yet 2 CPU's in Device
> > Manager - the CPU is a P4 2.8c.
> > HT has always been enabled in the bios, so I am curious if this is working
> > correctly as it does not appear to.
> >
> > Bios is F5.
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > - Tim
> >
> >

Bob Davis
July 25th 03, 04:39 AM
I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written for it.

"John Yuen" > wrote in message
...

> Wrong! There are so many benefit for having 2 cpus even when you don't
use
> program that take advantage of it. It allows you to multi-task with much
better
> response and performance. Rip/burn Cd/DVD in the background. Multiple
download
> form different program, etc, etc.
>
> Regards
> John Yuen

Tim
July 25th 03, 05:44 AM
Bob,

A common misconception. Any other task will benefit in a dual CPU
situation - CD burning / ripping as mentioned, FTP, switching to another app
etc. etc. I do a lot of database 'slice and dice' as I call it - large
queries.

A dual is a fat lot of use to a person that types with two fingers and only
ever uses one application at a time - the system will be smoother, but this
will be barely noticeable.

I am a software developer - I always have heaps to do, so having a machine
that works as fast as I think means I earn more. When one task is working, I
switch to another and keep working flat out. SCSI discs help a lot here,
although IDE with RAID seems to be a good option.

I have a rule of thumb - doesn't quite work these days - but it goes like
this.
When buying a system, don't buy at the very top of the CPU spec list, buy
one down EG 2.8G instead of 3G, get a dual motherboard, and when the price
of the CPU's drop, get another CPU - heaven.

This used to work well - prior to P4. The price delta between top spec and 1
off top spec CPU's is often great, while the diffference in performance is
usually < 10%. The CPU price delta usually exceeds the price margin for a
dual capable m/b. In addition to this, I have found that the machines I buy
like this last me a *lot* longer - they perform extremely well, and so
because of the quality of the user experience, one is happier using the
machine for a lot longer. Duals tend to be the most reliable m/b's.

I have only just - with this P42.8Ghz machine come across a machine that
COMPARES to the dual P2 400 server I have. Most of the work is somewhat
faster on this machine, but a full application compile (MS VC) has gone from
20+ minutes down to about 2. So, I am waiting with baited breath to see how
Opterons pan out - I may get a dual again. The P2 400 server runs 24 x 7 and
was purchased in 1998 I think - Asus P2B-DS with 640MB Ram, never crashes.

Another way to look at it is: if you computer keeps you waiting 5% of the
time, you cost 100,000 units per annum to employ, using a dual you
estimate - after stuffing around, gettting coffee, chatting to others, email
etc. - to save 50% of the wait time, then 2.5% of 100,000 units is 2,500. If
thats dollars, thats either another PC or a dual with money saved, more
productiviy, closer to deadlines etc. (Don't forget that if you are paid n$,
the cost of employment is likely around 2 x n$). This ignores the fact that
on a dual you can be running lengthy processes without costing anything. EG
writing CD's.

- Tim


"Bob Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written for
it.
>
> "John Yuen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Wrong! There are so many benefit for having 2 cpus even when you don't
> use
> > program that take advantage of it. It allows you to multi-task with much
> better
> > response and performance. Rip/burn Cd/DVD in the background. Multiple
> download
> > form different program, etc, etc.
> >
> > Regards
> > John Yuen
>
>

Bob Davis
July 25th 03, 08:25 PM
That makes sense. Thanks for the enlightenment.

"John Yuen" > wrote in message
...
> If you are running a single application, yes. but if you us multiple
> applications than you can take advanatge of the other cpu as long as the
OS
> (win2K, XP) recognize it.
>
> Regards
> John Yuen
>
> Bob Davis wrote:
>
> > I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> > dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written for
it.
> >
> > "John Yuen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Wrong! There are so many benefit for having 2 cpus even when you
don't
> > use
> > > program that take advantage of it. It allows you to multi-task with
much
> > better
> > > response and performance. Rip/burn Cd/DVD in the background. Multiple
> > download
> > > form different program, etc, etc.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > John Yuen
>

Bob Davis
July 25th 03, 08:44 PM
"Tim" > wrote in message
...

> I have a rule of thumb - doesn't quite work these days - but it goes like
> this. When buying a system, don't buy at the very top of the CPU spec
list, buy
> one down EG 2.8G instead of 3G, get a dual motherboard, and when the price
> of the CPU's drop, get another CPU - heaven.

My strategy exactly. I went with the 2.8C instead of the 3.0C and saved
$150. Now the 2.8 is $135 more than the 3.0 and the newly introduced 3.2
carries a $420 premium over the 2.8. Could anyone discern the difference?
I'd guess only by looking at benchmarks.

When HT was introduced I immediately started thinking about an upgrade from
my previous PIII-1000E, 512mb RAM, and Win98SE--which a few friends swore
I'd never abandon. Running PhotoShop and one other HT-aware app in my work,
I figured I could realize a meaningful performance gain, which indeed turned
out to be the case.

> Another way to look at it is: if you computer keeps you waiting 5% of the
> time, you cost 100,000 units per annum to employ, using a dual you
> estimate - after stuffing around, gettting coffee, chatting to others,
email
> etc. - to save 50% of the wait time, then 2.5% of 100,000 units is 2,500.
If
> thats dollars, thats either another PC or a dual with money saved, more
> productiviy, closer to deadlines etc. (Don't forget that if you are paid
n$,
> the cost of employment is likely around 2 x n$). This ignores the fact
that
> on a dual you can be running lengthy processes without costing anything.
EG
> writing CD's.

Some of the things that cause me to wait can be done in the background. For
example, processing 100 high-res raw files to TIF from a compactflash card
used in my Nikon cameras took 10 or 15 minutes before, but is finished in a
flash now using upgraded software that is HT-supported (Nikon Capture v3.5).
I'd say it is 4x faster, only some of which can be explained by the
processor speed alone. In the past I would start Nikon Capture and do
something else, like check email or get a cup of coffee. It wasn't causing
me any real anguish when I attempted to be efficient with my time. In
PhotoShop everything is seamless and I wait for almost nothing, and while
there were some slowdowns before they were minor.

Norton Ghost, which I run once per week on Saturday morning, is no faster
that before running in DOS mode, which is expected since it is very HD
intensive--but while it's running (15 minutes max) I go clean the bird cages
or mow the yard.

IOW, the old system wasn't as smooth and fast as this new outfit, but I
don't feel I'm wasting that much less time than before. I wouldn't go back
to the old, mind you.

Martin Nike
September 6th 03, 10:32 PM
Bob Davis wrote:
> I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written
> for it.

If the O/S supports it, then you'll get some advantages - windows will run
different apps on different processors.

--
Martin Nike
"Nothing, like something, happens anywhere."

Ken
September 6th 03, 11:45 PM
When i was playing quake 3 online and after i was logged off i saw that my
pc-cillin prog had scanned my pc. I didnt even notice. I guess that was the
hyperthreding

Ken


"Martin Nike" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Davis wrote:
> > I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> > dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written
> > for it.
>
> If the O/S supports it, then you'll get some advantages - windows will run
> different apps on different processors.
>
> --
> Martin Nike
> "Nothing, like something, happens anywhere."
>
>

Timothy Drouillard
September 7th 03, 01:19 AM
If I remember correctly (somebody correct me here), Quake 3 and possibly
some of the earlier versions, were one of the rare games that will actually
make use od dual processors.


"Ken" > wrote in message
u...
> When i was playing quake 3 online and after i was logged off i saw that
my
> pc-cillin prog had scanned my pc. I didnt even notice. I guess that was
the
> hyperthreding
>
> Ken
>
>
> "Martin Nike" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bob Davis wrote:
> > > I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> > > dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written
> > > for it.
> >
> > If the O/S supports it, then you'll get some advantages - windows will
run
> > different apps on different processors.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Nike
> > "Nothing, like something, happens anywhere."
> >
> >
>
>

Bob Davis
September 7th 03, 05:51 PM
I've noticed that. The two logical processors always show a different
percentage of use.

"Martin Nike" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Davis wrote:
> > I was always under the impression that any advantage gained from
> > dual-processors could be achieved only when the software is written
> > for it.
>
> If the O/S supports it, then you'll get some advantages - windows will run
> different apps on different processors.
>
> --
> Martin Nike
> "Nothing, like something, happens anywhere."
>
>