Vista with Quad port Quad CPU (4 X Quads)

psd99

psd99

psd99

Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2008
Posts
5,761
Hi all I was looking for some advice

Both of these machines have the same CPU's
4 X Quad core

1 is Vista 64bit Ultimate

2 is Windows 2003 Server

Yet check out the difference

vista machine:


Untitled3673434.jpg



Win2k3 server machine:

untitled6543-1.jpg





Does vista not support more than 2 quad cores? As you can see both machines in device manager detect the full 16 cores but yet in Vista in task manager I only see 8 - what is going on?

Can anyone explain what is going on here?
 
It's something like Vista Premium (1 socket support), Business and Ultimate (2 socket support).

You'd need server-grade OS to recognise more than 2.

Is that physically a single mobo with 4 sockets or rack-mounted units or linked up somehow? Just curious.
 
Vista supports at most two sockets, it'll support however many cores you like. Windows server supports more processor sockets.

Alternatively, ubuntu definitely supports four sockets out of the box, and probably a lot more. Are you stuck with windows?

Which motherboard is it incidentally?

edit: snap :)
 
Le Samourai said:
It's something like Vista Premium (1 socket support), Business and Ultimate (2 socket support).

You'd need server-grade OS to recognise more than 2.

Is that physically a single mobo with 4 sockets or rack-mounted units or linked up somehow? Just curious.
Click to expand...

This is a single motherboard with 4 sockets
each socket had a quad core

what I don't understand is the difference between the task manager and device manager - in task manager we see 8 cores
in device manager 16 - any ideas why there is a difference?
 
Device manager lists what is attached to your computer. So it knows it has four processors installed.
Task manager shows what the operating system has available, which is two processors. M$ decided users of quad socket systems should pay the premium for server operating systems.

Again, which motherboard is it? A part of me would really like a multi socket board but so far I know little about them. I'd run linux on it, so don't have to deal with microsoft being crap.
 
JonJ678 said:
Vista supports at most two sockets, it'll support however many cores you like. Windows server supports more processor sockets.

Alternatively, ubuntu definitely supports four sockets out of the box, and probably a lot more. Are you stuck with windows?

Which motherboard is it incidentally?

edit: snap :)
Click to expand...

motherboard mmmmm

good question I'll have to get back to you but it will most likely be an Intel board

I could try linux - might give that a go will cpuz/orthos/temp software all work in that?

also is there something in linux that shows cores - not familiar with GUI linux only commands to show the processors
 
Cpuz, orthos, and windows temperature monitoring will fail to work on linux for the obvious reasons. If you install wine a large amount of cpuz works, and I think you can run prime through wine or a similar program natively. Temperature monitoring is done with lm sensors

cat /proc/cpuinfo will list lots, grep through it if need be. Id expect that to show all of them.
Ubuntu definitely works with four processors (guy on xtreme built a quad socket system), which means Debian will do to. I'm unsure about the other distributions, but I would hazard a guess at any of the main ones supporting it out of the box. Those which don't will support it with a little configuration
 
JonJ678 said:
Device manager lists what is attached to your computer. So it knows it has four processors installed.
Task manager shows what the operating system has available, which is two processors. M$ decided users of quad socket systems should pay the premium for server operating systems.

Again, which motherboard is it? A part of me would really like a multi socket board but so far I know little about them. I'd run linux on it, so don't have to deal with microsoft being crap.
Click to expand...

thanks I'm unsure of the board right now

thanks for the explanation damn MS!!! that explanation makes real sense to me now.

Linux it is what should I go for? Debian or Red Hat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom