[xmf]

I recently acquired a netbook with an Intel N450 chip. Although experts claim this is a single-core chip, I've read a couple reviews stating:

"I didn't realize until after purchase that the Intel Atom N450 is seen as a dual core processor"

"I shortened the reboot time from 78 seconds to 55 seconds by configuring bootup to use 2 processors (Start, msconfig, Boot, Advanced options)"

So what is going on here? I know this processor isn't touted as being dual-core, but if it won't cause any damage I'd like to try setting XP up to see it as one (like the second user apparently did).

[iamtheky]

i think maybe Hyperthreading (shows as 2 processors) is being confused with dual-core.

the N450 is indeed a single core processor. http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=42503

[xmf]

This makes sense. So would changing the boot options be completely pointless?

[ChiefZeke]

The thing to do is to go into the BIOS and turn on the hyperthreading option - assuming one is available.

[xmf]

ChiefZeke, on 16 August 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

The thing to do is to go into the BIOS and turn on the hyperthreading option - assuming one is available.

So the man claiming performance gains by altering the core# in startup options was clearly mistaken then?

[xmf]

xmf, on 16 August 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:

ChiefZeke, on 16 August 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

The thing to do is to go into the BIOS and turn on the hyperthreading option - assuming one is available.

So the man claiming performance gains by altering the core# in startup options was clearly mistaken then?

Anyone? Chief?

This post has been edited by xmf: 18 August 2010 - 02:19 AM

[ChiefZeke]

xmf, on 18 August 2010 - 02:19 AM, said:

xmf, on 16 August 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:

ChiefZeke, on 16 August 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

The thing to do is to go into the BIOS and turn on the hyperthreading option - assuming one is available.

So the man claiming performance gains by altering the core# in startup options was clearly mistaken then?

Anyone? Chief?

I have no idea as I am not familier with the chip in question. I just mentioned the hyperthreading as a possibility if that is really a selection in the BIOS.

There are those that do confuse dual-core and/or hyperthreading as meaning the same thing though they are not. In some case you can have dual or quad core cpu's and a hyperthreading option also - which results in the system 'seeing' eight (8) processor's if quad-core and hyperthreading are both available.

[MagicAndre1981]

xmf, on 16 August 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

"I shortened the reboot time from 78 seconds to 55 seconds by configuring bootup to use 2 processors (Start, msconfig, Boot, Advanced options)"

Windows always uses all core unless you REDUCE the usage. You see the ReadyBoot effect:

http://www.msfn.org/...a-or-windows-7/

[Andromeda43]

MagicAndre1981, on 18 August 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

xmf, on 16 August 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

"I shortened the reboot time from 78 seconds to 55 seconds by configuring bootup to use 2 processors (Start, msconfig, Boot, Advanced options)"

Windows always uses all core unless you REDUCE the usage. You see the ReadyBoot effect:

http://www.msfn.org/...a-or-windows-7/

Not to dispute what's been said, but that's just not my own experience.
On my main system, I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 and I have an AMD 5200+ dual core CPU. I had to tell the stupid OS that there are two cores or it would have remained forever set to just 1 core. Windows is SO stupid.

On my Acer Aspire ONE Netbook, the Atom processor comes up in the config page, (the one listed above) with two cores, but as usual only one was selected. I set it to 2.
On my 8 yr old AMD 3000+ (single core) CPU, the config box showed ONLY ONE core, which is correct.

It would seem, from all of this that if you (or somebody) doesn't tell Windows how many cores you actually have, it will run on just one, till the cows come home.

Cheers Mates!

[xmf]

So two Intel Atom chip users are using the dual core boot option with apparent success. My question now is, can I possibly damage/mess up anything by simply trying this?

[ChiefZeke]

Andromeda43, on 18 August 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

MagicAndre1981, on 18 August 2010 - 05:55 PM, said:

xmf, on 16 August 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

"I shortened the reboot time from 78 seconds to 55 seconds by configuring bootup to use 2 processors (Start, msconfig, Boot, Advanced options)"

Windows always uses all core unless you REDUCE the usage. You see the ReadyBoot effect:

http://www.msfn.org/...a-or-windows-7/

Not to dispute what's been said, but that's just not my own experience.
On my main system, I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 and I have an AMD 5200+ dual core CPU. I had to tell the stupid OS that there are two cores or it would have remained forever set to just 1 core. Windows is SO stupid.

On my Acer Aspire ONE Netbook, the Atom processor comes up in the config page, (the one listed above) with two cores, but as usual only one was selected. I set it to 2.
On my 8 yr old AMD 3000+ (single core) CPU, the config box showed ONLY ONE core, which is correct.

It would seem, from all of this that if you (or somebody) doesn't tell Windows how many cores you actually have, it will run on just one, till the cows come home.

Cheers Mates!

Your situation does not apply to everyone. I have an ABIT IX48GT3 motherboard with an Intel Core2 Quad9650 cpu with XP Pro w/SP3, XP Pro x64 w/SP2, Win7 32-bit, and Win7 64-bit installed and at no time did I have to tell any of the versions of Windows how many cores I had. The installation routine of all four operating systems recognized the type of motherboard and cpu combination I had and installed the necessary drives and when the install was finished Device Manager had the correct information. So, don't blame Windows for what appears to be a hardware discrepancy in place prior to the operating system being installed.

[Mr Snrub]

Andromeda43, on 18 August 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

On my main system, I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 and I have an AMD 5200+ dual core CPU. I had to tell the stupid OS that there are two cores or it would have remained forever set to just 1 core. Windows is SO stupid.

On my Acer Aspire ONE Netbook, the Atom processor comes up in the config page, (the one listed above) with two cores, but as usual only one was selected. I set it to 2.
On my 8 yr old AMD 3000+ (single core) CPU, the config box showed ONLY ONE core, which is correct.

Are you checking the "number of cores Windows uses" through that MSCONFIG page?
As that defaults to 1 only if you actually check the box "Number of processors", as has been mentioned already, otherwise it will use all it sees.

The way to check the number of cores actually in use is simplest through Task Manager, on the Performance tab - how many CPU Usage History graphs do you have?

[MagicAndre1981]

Andromeda43, on 18 August 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

On my main system, I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 and I have an AMD 5200+ dual core CPU. I had to tell the stupid OS that there are two cores or it would have remained forever set to just 1 core. Windows is SO stupid.

You can believe what you want but its not true. When activating the option in msconfig an internal variable called KeNumprocSpecified is set in the function Phase1InitializationDiscard. The variable s later used in KeStartAllProcessors. If the variable is set, Windows activate this number of CPU, if not set, it enables all (licensed for the SKU) Processors.

Read the Windows Internals Book, Chapter 13 for more details about the boot process.

Disable Superfetch (which disables ReadyBoot under Windows 7) and reboot several time with and without your "tweak" and look at the difference ...