Core2 Quad with Windows 2000?

[SatStorm]

I already have a core2 duo 6600 and works perfect with win2K. I'm thinking to move on core2 quad, since I'm interesting for H264 encoding and from what I read on certain programs (which I shall use) the convertion time shorts 1/3 to half!

My question is: Does someone tested Core2 Quad on w2k? How it goes there?

[lenti_75]

any OS below vista doesn't use the cores too well.

I used the same computer, the same software..... on vista ultimate, canopus procoder was double the speed than on xp, simple as that.

I know .... the "smart" ones will start holler ...this is about software not os....they are idiots.

so, unless you change os, you probably won't have the full speed anyway.... it will work just fine, but not at the maximum speed.

this is just my experience, not some "expert" advise...

and something else...USE AMD man....not that shit called intel

[ofbarea]

Actually W2K had a limit of 2 CPU support. With a quad core probably a couple of them will not be used. W2K server does support more that 2 CPUs.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Windows 2000 Workstation supports a maximum of 2 logical processors - i.e., one Core2 Duo. A Core2 Quad will be wasted. You need Windows 2000 Server (or Datacenter) to get the desired quad core support.

[s:c35658b43c]Windows XP Pro supports a maximum of 2 physical processors and 4 logical processors. Hence, a single socket board can have a quad core chip that is fully utilized by XP Pro. A dual quad core system will be wasted.[/s:c35658b43c]

EDIT - See jagabo's post below.

Windows Vista (consumer versions) are the same as XP Pro.

If Procoder is running double the speed on Vista than XP then something is wrong with the XP arrangement. See this post for head-to-head XP vs Vista:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=966747

[jagabo]

Windows XP Pro supports a maximum of 2 physical processors and 4 logical processors. Hence, a single socket board can have a quad core chip that is fully utilized by XP Pro. A dual quad core system will be wasted.

I'm pretty sure XP Pro supports two physical processors (sockets) regardless of the number of cores (or logical processors) per socket. So a system with two quad core processors WILL use all eight cores.

For example this MSDN blog states:

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/10/02/780255.aspx

Windows XP Professional supports up to two processors. If you have two dual-core processors, Windows XP will use them both, for a total of four processing units. And if you enable hyperthreading on those processors, you get eight virtual processors out of the deal! Similarly, Windows XP Home supports one processor, but you if your one processor is a dual-core processor, then it will use both cores.

And this review at Tom's Hardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/12/06/quad-core-xeon-clovertown-rolls-into-dp-servers/

Is running XP Pro with dual quads.

[JohnnyMalaria]

You're right. Somewhere I recall reading that Microsoft changed the licensing model from XP Pro SP1 to SP2. The official info about the processor licensing model is VERY hard to find, but I did locate this which implies unlimited logical processors:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

If my questionable recollection is to be trusted (!) then going from XP Pro SP1 to Vista could result in a doubling of processor power. But there again....

[jagabo]

The official info about the processor licensing model is VERY hard to find, but I did locate this which implies unlimited logical processors:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

Thanks for digging that up. I know I've read it before but I couldn't find it when I replied earler.

[SatStorm]

Thanks for the infos!

@lenti_75: Actually I use to be a AMD man myself. From 1998 to mid 2006, I used only AMD CPUs. But for my H264 workstation, I need the most powerful CPU possible. At this point this is intel.


@ofbarea: I'm lucky! In my job, they switch the server from win2K server (OEM edition I think) to Linux. I was smart enough to buy the original CD from my job for ... 15 euros!

O.T: I would love to find the 64bit version of Win2K. I read that they had a 64bit version once.

[jagabo]

O.T: I would love to find the 64bit version of Win2K. I read that they had a 64bit version once.

I believe it was for the Itanium processor, not x86.

[lenti_75]

If Procoder is running double the speed on Vista than XP then something is wrong with the XP arrangement. See this post for head-to-head XP vs Vista:

I KNEW THIS WILL COME.....haha.

I;ve been working and playing on pc's for the last 15+yrs....you tell me what I might do wrong with a shitty xp ...

you are a moron...just like others who wrote that shit.

f you don't test it SHUT UP

[JohnnyMalaria]

I;ve been working and playing on pc's for the last 15+yrs....you tell me what I might do wrong with a shitty xp ...

Well, since I've been using PCs since 1984 and programming/building them since 1987, why don't you enlighten me (and everyone else) why Procoder runs twice as fast on Vista - and how this seems to be a unique experience for you....

[JohnnyMalaria]

O.T: I would love to find the 64bit version of Win2K. I read that they had a 64bit version once.

Indeed they did release a version of Windows 2000 Advanced Server but for the Intel Itanium processor, not the more familiar AMD64/EM64T architecture.

Some blurb:

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/architecture/idfwin64lab.pdf

[stiltman]

Not that this helps the OP, but I can confirm that a Quad Core works just fine with XP Pro

I have a Quad Core Xeon Proc E5335 running right now

[SatStorm]

I can confirm myself that win xp pro works perfect with core2 quad, but I wish to use windows 2000 for my workstation. Any flavor of it, I 'm old school!

In the matter of fact, I plan to buy a laptop also, without any OS pre-installed and install win2K myself!

I just love win2K....

O.T.: No 64bit win2K for me then...

[lordsmurf]

Sat, XP SP2 works well. I even moved off 2000 eventually. Most of the newer software forced me, and while I resisted, it wasn't so bad in the end. I actually prefer XP Pro to 2000 now. I stripped the candy-GUI crap off XP (performance settings, uncheck some things), so it looks just like 2000 did.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

If Procoder is running double the speed on Vista than XP then something is wrong with the XP arrangement. See this post for head-to-head XP vs Vista:

I KNEW THIS WILL COME.....haha.

I;ve been working and playing on pc's for the last 15+yrs....you tell me what I might do wrong with a shitty xp ...

you are a moron...just like others who wrote that shit.

f you don't test it SHUT UP

This reminds me of my "forum etiquette" thread

[SatStorm]

Hi LS! Long time, long see

I already use the last 2 years winXP pro on 2 of my PCs. The problem is that it just hangs up the way I use my computers. Crashes a lot. Especially the explorer. Things I do with win2K without issues, turn to disaster with winXP pro. And it is not my hardware, neither my winXP CD: It is probably the way I push the limits of my PC on doing things.

The workstation I gonna set up, is going to re-encode my 120.000 videoclips collection twice: Once in x264 at 720x576 widescreen and once at 352x288. I even think to convert them to mpeg 1, vcd like also...

The hard discs are ready, so super encoder. We talking about weeks of batch re-encoding and a stable and fast system is necessary. Win2K is about 12-15% faster winXP pro on video encoding, my personal observation of course. When you deal with a size of such project, this 12-15% is something! Probably a week less... And far more stable!

BTW, personally, the only thing I didn't manage to make it work on win2K was mediaportal.

Next to music videos, my cartoon collection is going to be converted to x264 too! It's the next project. So for a year or so, this workstation won't switch off...

[JohnnyMalaria]

Crashes a lot. Especially the explorer.

The usual suspect for Explorer crashing is a bad codec that is called to create the thumbnails. Often, disabling thumbnails or using the classic folders view option can get rid of the problem.

[SatStorm]

No it is not...

In my case, the problem is the SkyStar2 DVB card, which for legal reasons, the drivers make winXP to believe that it is a modem for satellite internet! Add some plug ins for home-lan cardshare between the rooms and a wired DSL connection and you get the picture.

On Win2K, I don't have those problems, probably because is a server oriented O.S.

To understand the problem, SkyStar2 shows as second LAN card on WinXP pro (all flavors). And that problem is common with the european DVB cards overall. If you record a DVB channel, re-encode mpeg 2 files, browse the internet and download a couple of things, crashing -after a while - is the rule.

Another typical crashing happens when you use virtualdub twice, with filters like de-logo and neatvideo and frameserve to 2 TMPGenc 2.5 windows. This is the only way to speed up things with virtualdub: running it twice on 2 core.

I have study winXP and win2K enough to know what crashes and when. WinXP indeed has its benefits, but for what I wish to set up, I wish to play it safe and use win2K...