I haven’t kept up with how XP works with multi-processor systems.
I’m building a computer for my parents. I have 2 mother boards available that will work with the RAM I have.
The first one is a dual celeron 466 on an old A-bit (I dunno the MB code). It was one of my first (and really, last) Intel board I owned. I believe it has an AGP bus but I’m not sure (and it’s not all that important, I have both AGP and PCI videocards available to me).
The next board is more recent. It’s a Athlon 750 slot on an ASUS board (KV7 something).
So, under XP in an non-gaming environment, which would be better to use? Both boards will be loaded with 512 megs of RAM (SDRAM!).
Would there be a big difference between them? I’m leaning towards the 750 only because it’s newer. I’d like to give them the faster of the 2 since these boards are in my “junk” pile.
Does anyone know if XP does a good job with Multi-processor threading?
Thanks!
The higher processor speed wins EVERY TIME for everyday Word Processing and Internet Access applications.
XP is great with multiprocessing, but the return on investment on multiprocessors under any OS is quite low unless you’re running certain applications.
You will probably not the running “those apps”.
“Those apps” would typically be video rendering or production accounting databases.
Unless you have both an OS and apps that can advantage of multi-processor setup the gain just isn’t there, and IIRC only XP Pro does dual CPU support. 466’s, dual or not, are not really a suitable CPU for XP. Go with the 750.
I assume you are installing XP Pro, XP home doesn’t support SMP (the code isn’t any different, but runtime configuration is).
I would expect XP to handle SMP nearly as well as server 2003 - since it is a midway between 2000 and 2003. Win 2000 and above handle SMP very well (meaning, significant performance gain). Remember, Win 2000 Pro and Win 2000 Advanced Server are the same codebase. There are lots of runtime differences in terms of hardware they’ll support and lots of tuning differences - but the code is the same so the SMP support is the same (except for number of processors supported of course). The OSes are still internally versioned from the NT versioning system - XP is NT 5.1 - I believe 2003 is 5.5 (could be wrong).
Anyway, the point is that XP Pro, in which SMP for two processors is enabled, will do a very fine job of it. However, your Athlon may have more L2 cache, a faster bus speed, etc. Probably none of this matters for a non-gaming PC, I think you’ll do fine either way.
Actually today most apps are multi-threaded, including basic office applications. Win XP will use both processors even with a single process that is multi-threaded (it knows this Kung Fu). Does this mean all those threads are equally busy? No, so you are definitely right that there are some diminishing returns.
This will be an Abit BP6. A fantastic board. I have one of them running my server right now, with dual Celeron 400s. It’s a wonderful platform for XP Pro; XP Home won’t use the second CPU. Unless your parents play games or do something intensive, I’m not sure they’ll see any difference in raw speed between the two. The dual-CPU system will seem rather smoother in operation than the single-CPU system. Right now I’m using a dual P3-1000 (Abit VP6) in preference to my single P4-2400. For games, I’ll use the latter, but for everyday use, the dual P3 wins every time.
Possibly of interest may be that the AGP slot on the BP6 can support older 5 volt AGP cards like the 3dfx Voodoo 5000, whereas the newer motherboard may not.
Astro is not entirely correct about support for multiprocessing. While it is true that most apps are single-threaded and therefore do not benefit from multiple processors, Windows XP will split processes amongst the processors so you can have two intensive apps running simultaneously.
Astro is not entirely correct about support for multiprocessing. While it is true that most apps are single-threaded and therefore do not benefit from multiple processorsQUOTE]
This is not at all true. Please do a ctrl-alt-del, select task manager, select View->Select Columns. Include thread count. Run various applications. You will notice that most process use multiple threads. Winword.exe (MS Word) for example, launches 4 threads on startup. Now, are all these threads DOING anything? Not all the time. If there are lots of idle threads, SMP won’t help you. But presumably all these threads are doing something sometimes, so SMP will improve performance all other things being equal.
My readings lead me to believe that in most applications there is in fact only one HEAVY thread. Even if they’re multi-threaded, the vast majority of the time it really will not open itself up to substantial use by multi-processor systems.
I believe this even holds true with most 3D games.
I would challenge anyone who has opposing views to find benchmarks indicating better than 30% performance increase on a leap from 1 CPU to 2 CPUs on any application set excepting scientific computing, video rendering and database management.
I expect that the typical user will never get more than 15% usage from the less used CPU under anything resembling normal PC workloads.
As a counterpoint, I have a link to the next page of the same ArsTechnica articles, complete with benchmarks indicating the differences between single and dual CPU performance on applications considering by the author “rather important for high-end PCs”.
Link: http://arstechnica.com/cpu/3q99/smp/smp-5.html
All agreed. There is no ROI for SMP for the home user, that is why it is not marketed or sold to same. I disagree this is only useful for scientific or database apps - but this is hair splitting. It is also useful for application servers, such as web servers, EJB server, CLB server, whatever instantiates multiple threads that average equal weight. However, OP has spare parts, must make a choice without spending $. I think he will do fine either way.
You’re right qts, the board is an old BP6. And the OS will be XP Pro.
I’ll probably go with the 750. The BP6 is fun to play with so I’ll keep it around and maybe get it working (I already have 2 machines, a 3000xp and a 1600xp).
Now the question is, should I give my parent’s machine my vaulted PCI Radeon AiW 16 megs (I think) or a no name 4 meg AGP card
I have to dissent. I’ve found that SMP systems provide a more responsive user interface than single CPU systems. They are much less likely to “bog down” when there is a CPU intensive task running. I’d take the SMP system.
I concede entirely to the last two posts made by mks57 and cooper . Cooper, I forgot those applications. mks57, I’ve heard that assertion repeatedly, and I’m certain it is wholly true.
I’d rather have an SMP rig myself. But only if my hardware performance was properly balanced against what I was spending on it. Meaning, I’d only buy SMP if I was spending too much on the computer already, and had already bought too much CPU speed, too much RAM and too much 3D Video Card.
Otherwise, I’d take the money the second CPU and better motherboard would cost me and plow it back into my system’s basic needs.
First PC I built was an Abit BP6 with dual Celeron 500mhz. Still got it and it still runs like a champ.
If WinXP Home won’t utilize the second CPU then I’d give mom and dad the single faster CPU box. Pity about that, dual CPUs are very nice when you are doing several things at once (surfing plus burning CD plus…), the machine tends to stay much more responsive (since no single app ties up the whole processor) and feels smoother.
