Folding Forum

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Leaks+6cor ... e10834.htm

excerpt from article wrote:Dunnington, Intel's 45nm six-core Xeon processor from the Penryn family, will succeed the Xeon Tigerton processor. Whereas Tigerton is essentially two 65nm Core 2 Duo processors fused on one package, Dunnington will be Intel's first Core 2 Duo processor with three dual-core banks.

Dunnington includes 16MB of L3 cache shared by all six processors. Each pair of cores can also access 3MB of local L2 cache.

Time to get a SMP client (by Q4 08) with more than 4 fahcores.

Maybe in 2017

We'll have a F@H SMP core ready by that time that can handle the required number of CPU cores.

That's really cool, tho unfortunately that would mean a person like myself(I'm completely linux stupid) would have to upgrade to vista, since XP would see that as three processors.

Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.

from this page.

Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor

kasson wrote:We'll have a F@H SMP core ready by that time that can handle the required number of CPU cores.

Sure you will.

et tu cabler?

Flathead74 wrote:

Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.

from this page.

Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor

This is one physical processor, one socket if you like it better. Logical processors (Hyperthreading) and cores in the same processors are all on the same socket, so it is supported.

P.S : XP Pro supports two physical processors (I run a bi-opteron 2212 under XP Pro, which is a dual socket F system : two physical processors, four cores (2*2))

I was told that the Intel chips, in the case of the Quad, 2 dual cores on one socket, but still counted as two processors, each with two cores. Thus a box with two of AMD's Quad's would work under XP Pro, but two of Intel's would not. Is this actually not the case? XP just displays each core as a processor under Device Manager. If I am mistaken, I take back my previous comment.

Edit: Sentence didn't make much sense, still is a bit off, but meh, its comprehensible.

zanth wrote:I was told that the Intel chips, in the case of the Quad, 2 dual cores on one socket, but still counted as two processors, each with two cores. Thus a box with two of AMD's Quad's would work under XP Pro, but two of Intel's would not. Is this actually not the case? XP just displays each core as a processor under Device Manager. If I am mistaken, I take back my previous comment.

Edit: Sentence didn't make much sense, still is a bit off, but meh, its comprehensible.

You were told incorrectly.

I published the list of supported processor sockets per MS operating system in the Known Bugs List sticky post at the top of the Windows SMP Beta section of the forum. MS only looks at sockets, not cores, and doesn't care about Intel vs. AMD. My list probably came from the same link Flathead74 posted above.

I'm running a q6600 with XP Home- 4 cores, one socket, works fine.

7im wrote:http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Leaks+6cor ... e10834.htm

excerpt from article wrote:Dunnington, Intel's 45nm six-core Xeon processor from the Penryn family, will succeed the Xeon Tigerton processor. Whereas Tigerton is essentially two 65nm Core 2 Duo processors fused on one package, Dunnington will be Intel's first Core 2 Duo processor with three dual-core banks.

Dunnington includes 16MB of L3 cache shared by all six processors. Each pair of cores can also access 3MB of local L2 cache.

Time to get a SMP client (by Q4 08) with more than 4 fahcores.

Here are two more articles:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... essor.html

http://gizmodo.com/360476/intels-6+core ... ors-leaked

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

7im wrote:

zanth wrote:I was told that the Intel chips, in the case of the Quad, 2 dual cores on one socket, but still counted as two processors, each with two cores. Thus a box with two of AMD's Quad's would work under XP Pro, but two of Intel's would not. Is this actually not the case? XP just displays each core as a processor under Device Manager. If I am mistaken, I take back my previous comment.

Edit: Sentence didn't make much sense, still is a bit off, but meh, its comprehensible.

You were told incorrectly.

I published the list of supported processor sockets per MS operating system in the Known Bugs List sticky post at the top of the Windows SMP Beta section of the forum. MS only looks at sockets, not cores, and doesn't care about Intel vs. AMD. My list probably came from the same link Flathead74 posted above.

Ah, thats very good to know, thank you for setting me straight. The more you know and all that.