Has anyone had any first-hand experience with setting up a multi-processor machine running WinXP, or any other sort of windows?

Do Windows XP have a smart way of using 2 processors, if they are installed on a 2-processor platform?

How much difference would I see if I used 2 processors instead of one? I know (theoretically) that I cannot get the machine to perform 2 times more quick, but how much more quick will it be?

I'd mostly be doing a lot of compiling on such machine and running a lot of services/servers, playing music, downloading things from internet (1GB+ files on 128kbps connection) and sometimes burning DVDs (preferably, all at once).

With HyperThreaded Intel processors, I think the furor over multi-processor systems kind of died off..?. at least for running Windows systems.

If I remember right, I was always told that unless the software specifically took advantage of having two CPUs, there was only a modest increase on overall performance in such a configuration.

I've noted that an Intel HyperThreaded processor is noticeably faster than a non-HyperThreaded one - this technology apparently takes better advantage of using both CPUs without specialized software.

amd is better than intel so don't go with hyperthreading over hypertransport
I had the same thought and wanted to try it but the system that I wanted to put togather would cost me about 3k + watercooling which I think I will need
I would get all this stuff off newegg.com
from what I heard then the new os longhorn and the unix os like redhat will get an increase in their performance noticeably
windows xp home edition will not get any help but the professional should be enough to be worth it

the system I want and will get when it drops down to like 2k will be

2 x amd opteron (socket 940) 2.4g -- 1gig fsb -- $ 461 (each) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103563

the asus K8N-dl motherboard for the pci-x-16 slot $225
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131059

3 x corsair dual channel ram $287(each)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145476

the saphire radeon 800xl for $259 512mb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102579

at least 1 western digital raptor 10,000rpm 74 gig hard drive $135(after 20 mir)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822144160

I am a 4th year computer science student at NYIT and I already put togater my curent PC and I reaserched this for a while as well as spoke to profesors but no actual first hand experience because all of them said "why do you need all this power to play games" I say " I do it so I don't have to wait for a program to load while I rip from one drive and burn onto another
this will give you the best bang for your buck you could always go farther like sli which is using 2 graphics cards but that goest through one buss which in my opinion won't be as good and you can even have 8 cpus
I hope this was helpful

ps with 2 cpus u need more power and the ram and graphics I sugest will require at least a 500w power supply

You would need XP Pro to start (http://www.freepctech.com/pc/xp/xp00196.shtml)
Also applications must be written to take advantage of multiple processors.

Just add here, The big thing now is dual core. It's the next step up from hyperthreading which means 2 virtual processors. Dual core actually jams 2 separate processors on the same chip. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 and the Intel 800/900 D lines are the Dual cores. In a recent review the AMD blew away the Intels in 7 out of 7 benchmarks.

Thanks guys! You've educated me too! :)

Dual core I still way to expensive and the 2 cores are accesing the same ram and cache over the same bus so I don't think that this is *** great as it sounds
http://www.linux-mag.com/ check out this free online magazine for good information

This is stupid I misspelles as with two ss and the post changed it into stars
Hahhahhhaa

I don't think dual core is that expensive. I've seen Pentium D and X2 Pcs around $1000.

Wow... thanks a lot guys for all your responses.

I am not really interested in playing games. I'd play Need for Speed now and then, but I could live with lower details. It's all about the racing anyway, not about graphics ;)

Also, I'm looking into something a bit cheaper. What costs 1000$ in USA costs at least double here in Croatia. And to add to it, life standard is much lower. I was thinking of getting 2 Celerons and a simple motherboard that would accept such 2 processors. Nothing very fancy.

Would 2 Celerons (INTEL Celeron 335 D 2800 MHz, 256 kb cache, socket 478, BUS 533 MHz) outperform a Prescott (INTEL P4 640 HT, 3.2 GHz, 2 Mb cache, LGA 775, BUS 800 MHz, Prescott, EM64T)? Because I can get 3 Celerons for the price of 1 Prescott.

I'm just trying to understand my options, and see if 2 Celerons would be better suited than 1 Prescott for what I want to do with them.

Also, I'm using Intel processors here as a reference only... I will look into AMD processors. I have always used Intels until now, but if you're saying that AMD is better lately - I'll look into them.

CroCivic to answer your question DON'T touch celerons with a barge pole.They are basically low price/spec CPU's designed for low intenstity business use.
The P4 you are looking at will seriously out perform ANY celeron on the market at present, esecially with HT enabled.
As has already been mentioned your best bet would be an AMD X2 chip, if you can find one.

I don't think there is a motherboard out there that you can put 2 celerons into one motherboard the only ones that I know for sure you can double is opterons and xeons which are just as expensive
I also agree that the one will outperform the 2 celerons but that can be different in amds the main thing to look at is bus speed and cache because that is what really limits their output

All right, thank you very much.

I guess the conclusion is - don't mess with 2 processors. Stick to a single good processor.

Yeah I guess its not for everyone
Can someone please coment on my setup described in an earlier post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phillysteakandcheese

With HyperThreaded Intel processors, I think the furor over multi-processor systems kind of died off ...???... at least for running Windows systems.

If I remember right, I was always told that unless the software specifically took advantage of having two CPUs, there was only a modest increase on overall performance in such a configuration.

I've noted that an Intel HyperThreaded processor is noticably faster than a non-HyperThreaded one - this technology apparently takes better advantage of using both CPUs without specialized software.

---

You are correct. I really comes down to money. AMD is a little cheaper than intel. All brands in video, memory, harddrives, motherboards... All this makes up a systems total thruput.

geraldask