XP Home has no problems with a C2D, so no need upgrading to XP Pro. The C2D is a multicore package, you are probably confusing the non-support criteria for multi-processors.
In order to use both cores in a dual core 2 you will have to use XP pro, but Xp basic will work with the dual core 2, but only utilizing only one of its cores.
The reason I asked is I was looking at the specs of an E6400 http://processorfinder.intel.com/De... and saw something about EM64T and the footnote said "Intel® EM64T requires a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, operating system, device drivers and applications enabled for Intel EM64T. Processor will not operate (including 32-bit operation) without an Intel EM64T-enabled BIOS." Will the Intel x38 chipset work?
"XP Home will only use 1 of the 2, which is REALLY stupid."
This is not true. While XP Home is limited to using only one processor on a dual-socket SMP system, it is fully capable of using both cores of a single socket, dual-core system.
The lean, mean, movie playing P3 machine P3-S 1400 @ 1.66GHz, 158MHz FSB 2GB PC2700 DDR 7950GT AGP Optoma 1280x720 projector JBL 5.1 amp and speakers Now storing 114 HD movies
"XP Home will only use 1 of the 2, which is REALLY stupid"
I posted that article for clarification because I knew someone was gonna say that.
The article is a bit dated but it has some interesting info, such as why dual-core CPUs were developed in the 1st place...do you think it was for our benefit??
"AMD and Intel are desperate. Both companies have run into barriers when it comes to increasing the raw speed of processors, or decreasing the die size. Until these roadblocks are cleared or until the general buying public understands that GHz does not directly translate to performance, both companies will be scrambling to discover any new improvements that will improve processor performance... without actually boosting core speed. This is why the idea of dual-core processors is now a reality"
Yes it is true, like I was almost true. XP Home would take full advantage of the dual-core, but would only be seeing one of the processors instead of the 2 and at the same time, would only show up 2.4 ghz, instead of them being combined. Doesn't that make putting Windows XP Professional Faster than Windows XP Home? Does that prove that the Professional is a more FASTER operating system compared to Windows XP Home? Owned. Anyways, why is it that they are trying to make 2 processors in one CPU instead of making One Core Duo 4.8 GHz Processor instead of Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz? Just Curious. I know that GHz isn't about performance like jam says, but what does 2 core processors in one make it more conveinient than 1 processor?
Kute Punk Kay Pee Kay Tee Pren Tiss Kute Punk Kay Pee Kay Tee Pren Tiss
I'm so tired right now that I'm not going to even try to fully understand what the heck you just wrote.
Whatever. -XP Home will SEE and USE each core of a dual- or even quad-core single socket system. Only systems with two or more processors residing in separate sockets would require XP Pro.
-If anything, XP Home would be the "more faster" OS, since it's got fewer services running underneath the hood than does XP Pro.
-I'm gonna leave the rest of what you wrote for someone else to decipher. I'm going to bed.
The lean, mean, movie playing P3 machine P3-S 1400 @ 1.66GHz, 158MHz FSB 2GB PC2700 DDR 7950GT AGP Optoma 1280x720 projector JBL 5.1 amp and speakers Now storing 114 HD movies
Kay Tee Intel and AMD hit the ghz max limit @ 4ghz on single core processors. Anything beyond that would make that single core overheat and highly unstable. So AMD and Intel came up with a solution to make 2 cores on one processor to compensate the ghz max limit on single core processors. So two 2.8ghz on each core would equal that of a 4.6ghz single core processor in performance while at the same time keeping it cool and stable.
I have an application that runs much slower on XP Pro than on XP Home, on an MSI motherboard with an Intel Duo Core (each core is 3.0 GHz).
The application (as montiored by Task Manager, which graphs both total CPU utilization, and the usage of each core) barely struggles along using a few percent of tech core in XP Pro, but uses about 60% or more of one core and about 40% of the second core in XP Home, running about 8x faster (overall completion time) on XP Home.
Somehow XP Pro does not do a good job of allocating the threads to the cores. XP Home does much better.
The application, in Visual Basic, reading an Access database, and using "scripting calls" to MS Word, "edits" an MS Word document.
In XP Pro, if I "assign" my application AND MS Word to one core only (the same core), it runs only 1.5 times slower than XP Home.
The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such
opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk.
Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE
Version Tracker Pro
Driver Agent