Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 09:55:24 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 12:10:34, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 12:04:44, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 11:40:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2002 at 10:31:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>It doesn't necessarily get slower. And once you move to windows .new, or >>>>the new linux kernel gets fixed, this won't happen at all as both of these >>>>systems will understand that two threads need to run on two physical processors >>>>rather than on two logical processors on the same physical processor... >>>> >>>>what is your point? This is a sudden revellation to you? :) >>> >>>Yes. The thing is, Microsoft is _specifically_ advertising Windows XP >>>(which was used for this test) as 'HyperThreading optimized'. >>> >>>This test shows that that should be taken with a few mountains >>>of salt, considering the OS cannot even schedule correctly! >>> >>>This means that _right now_, there are severe issues with HT >>>on a dual system. And they won't be resolved until a next generation >>>of OS comes out. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>Windows .net Server = Windows XP Server > >The tests were run on Windows XP Professional. Is the XP Server >scheduler smarter? > >-- >GCP Chances are that the scheduler in WinNT 3.1 is the same one (with slight modifications for HT) that Windows .NET Server uses. Whether or not the changes exist in Windows XP Pro, I don't know. Microsoft is likely to introduce the changes -first- to Windows .NET Server to encourage people to buy it, but since that's not out to market just yet, it's difficult to say. Intel wins nothing if Microsoft doesn't support it -- the sad reason why Alpha isn't on our desktops. -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.