Xeon Owners Club

[Dr. Dro]

That the thing about a few years old games from 2000 to 2010 it don't require that many cores it not like we be playing solitaire on 16 cores cpu is unnecessary

Naturally, software follows hardware and games are not an exception. It'd be irrational to expect a game from 2005 to use more resources than a state of the art PC from 2005 had, so it's largely single core, in very few cases dual core, barely with shader model 3.0 (dx9.0c) support, etc.

 

[Edwired]

Naturally, software follows hardware and games are not an exception. It'd be irrational to expect a game from 2005 to use more resources than a state of the art PC from 2005 had, so it's largely single core, in very few cases dual core, barely with shader model 3.0 (dx9.0c) support, etc.

Then naturally the games were designed for a specific hardware configuration doesn't work correctly on newer hardware due to complexity of the operating system like it sometimes don't allocate correct resources for the game therefore you have issues in the games. Therefore remains the question "Do you need more cores or not upgrading because it not broken"

 

[Dr. Dro]

Then naturally the games were designed for a specific hardware configuration doesn't work correctly on newer hardware due to complexity of the operating system like it sometimes don't allocate correct resources for the game therefore you have issues in the games. Therefore remains the question "Do you need more cores or not upgrading because it not broken"

Not necessarily, since Windows takes backwards compatibility seriously to a fault, but in general, engine limitations will not allow games to take advantage of more hardware resources than existed at the time of its launch. That's why they tend to be single-threaded or have a memory ceiling, for example.

However, an era-specific PC will still play games relatively better than newer machines, this is more common with early XP era games.

 

[Edwired]

Not necessarily, since Windows takes backwards compatibility seriously to a fault, but in general, engine limitations will not allow games to take advantage of more hardware resources than existed at the time of its launch. That's why they tend to be single-threaded or have a memory ceiling, for example.

However, an era-specific PC will still play games relatively better than newer machines, this is more common with early XP era games.

Well for some cases older computers ran better for the games that were designed for it not the other way around.
Microsoft didn't take backward compatibility seriously since windows 7 it began dropping support moving forward

 

[lexluthermiester]

That the thing about a few years old games from 2000 to 2010 it don't require that many cores it not like we be playing solitaire on 16 cores cpu is unnecessary

Well, yeah, but that's 15 to 25 years ago.

 

[Edwired]

Funny thing about a video other day a guy complaining about windows operating system on 128 cores cpu is janky wonder why is he complaining about it.
Sure Intel brings out 288 core cpu with no performance cores only efficient cores for a Xeon setup

 

[lexluthermiester]

Funny thing about a video other day a guy complaining about windows operating system on 128 cores cpu is janky wonder why is he complaining about it

It was likely a meritless complaint.

 

[:D:D]

Then naturally the games were designed for a specific hardware configuration doesn't work correctly on newer hardware due to complexity of the operating system like it sometimes don't allocate correct resources for the game therefore you have issues in the games.

I vaguely remember some games ran many time faster than they were meant to and the execution had to be slowed down to be playable but cannot remember the era, maybe 16-bit under a 32-bit Windows?

Funny thing about a video other day a guy complaining about windows operating system on 128 cores cpu is janky wonder why is he complaining about it.

Well 32-bit OS could only address 32 logical CPU's and 64-bit 64 logical CPU's so grouping was introduced sometime but a lot of highly multi-threaded software wasn't group aware so had problems of only assigning the processors in it's group. Hopefully that's mostly sorted now but idk as I don't have that many cores/threads and run old HW. You can however experiment with bcdedit.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I vaguely remember some games ran many time faster than they were meant to and the execution had to be slowed down to be playable but cannot remember the era, maybe 16-bit under a 32-bit Windows?


Well 32-bit OS could only address 32 logical CPU's and 64-bit 64 logical CPU's so grouping was introduced sometime but a lot of highly multi-threaded software wasn't group aware so had problems of only assigning the processors in it's group. Hopefully that's mostly sorted now but idk as I don't have that many cores/threads and run old HW. You can however experiment with bcdedit.

Wasn't a bit thing, just certain games being developed against a certain clock speed. Some very old games from the 80s assume a specific speed (8/16/33MHz) that is why the "turbo" button exists. It slowed down the CPU to match that. Processor groups workaround the maximum logical CPU core limitation on Windows NT.

Decoding the Past: The Purpose of the Computer’s TURBO Button

Those who remember the 90's certainly remember the TURBO button. What was it actually for? Unraveling the mystery.

medium.com

BTW, an update on my previous dilemma: I ended up ordering an E5-1650 v4. Being identical to the i7-6850K with the same fairly high clock speeds, it will fulfill my requirements nicely.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well 32-bit OS could only address 32 logical CPU's and 64-bit 64 logical CPU's so grouping was introduced sometime but a lot of highly multi-threaded software wasn't group aware so had problems of only assigning the processors in it's group.

Don't think that's right, though I'll admit to not knowing enough about CPU grouping schemes and technical specs to tell you why.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Don't think that's right, though I'll admit to not knowing enough about CPU grouping schemes and technical specs to tell you why.

Process Lasso dev has an article on it, good read

The 64 Core Threshold – Processor Groups on Windows

TL;DR – Microsoft hacked in support for more than 64 logical CPU cores by adding ‘processor groups’. Unless an application is written to take advantage of multiple processor group…

bitsum.com

 

[lexluthermiester]

Process Lasso dev has an article on it, good read

The 64 Core Threshold – Processor Groups on Windows

TL;DR – Microsoft hacked in support for more than 64 logical CPU cores by adding ‘processor groups’. Unless an application is written to take advantage of multiple processor group…

bitsum.com

Ah! Thank You! Thinking I remember this and that the limit is more codified in the software, but not an actual hardware limit.

 

[:D:D]

See if this helps

Processor Groups - Win32 apps

The 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and later versions of Windows support more than 64 logical processors on a single computer. This functionality is not available on 32-bit versions of Windows.

learn.microsoft.com

The 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and later versions of Windows support more than 64 logical processors on a single computer. This functionality is not available on 32-bit versions of Windows.

Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP: Processor groups are not supported.

So groups were introduced with W7. It also seems things have changed with W11 but as I have never used W11 I will not comment on it.

starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022 the OS has changed to make processes and their threads span all processors in the system, across all processor groups, by default. This means that applications no longer need to explicitly set their threads' affinities in order to access multiple processor groups.

Turbo button rings a bell. I thought the effected programs I saw were 16-bit under the CPU built-in virtual 8086 mode when running an OS using 32-bit protected mode but wouldn't be surprised at all if I have things mixed up.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I've got a treat for you guys. Due to the PSU malfunction (check power supply forum for the repair thread!) I've disassembled my rig a little earlier than originally planned. I'll put it back together once my Broadwell CPU arrives, so here's some nudes on my 4669 v3 QS

 

[lexluthermiester]

so here's some nudes on my 4669 v3 QS

LMAO! You said nudes!

 

[Dr. Dro]

The package with my new CPU arrived but it had a 2667 v3 inside. Aaa. I'm returning it, since the entire point is to get Broadwell. Just wasn't meant to be.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The package with my new CPU arrived but it had a 2667 v3 inside. Aaa. I'm returning it, since the entire point is to get Broadwell. Just wasn't meant to be.

No! Keep it, that's a great CPU! Ask for a partial refund instead.

 

[Dr. Dro]

No! Keep it, that's a great CPU! Ask for a partial refund instead.

I sent it back already. If they sent me an unlocked 5960X I would have kept it, but otherwise I don't see the point. If not Broadwell, the only chips that make sense to me are the 5960X and the 2699 v3