[Hardware] Dual-core and/or SMP + Win9x/ME
shiz0rat at real.xakep.ru
Mon Oct 31 23:06:35 EST 2005
>>> The distributed.net client can ONLY use processors/cores that are also
>>> supported by the operating system.
>> So, I'm wrong. I hoped, that dnetc have one`s own "intellect" for
>> detecting number of processors and their capabilities. Am I talk rot?
> There's usually a way to detect what kind of processor you have (reading
> a special-purpose register or so). There might be a way to detect how
> many there are (perhaps more instructions to do this).
> But there's no way for a 'normal' app to, say, tell the other processor
> what to do.
>> 1.I want separate computer for gaming ONLY. AFAIK, best OS for this
>> purpose is Win98 (all my friends, who have skills in Windows, say thus).
> Many new games require NT-based systems.
You enlighten me! Please, give me names of few games of that kind.
> Win98 may also have more DirectX bugs
What sort of bugs?
> but its strength lies in the fact that it's not really a 'real' OS.
Yes, it is more effective in situation, when we run only one process
(game), but dramatically ugly, when we use it for real multitasking.
>> As you can see, we have same efficiency in games and much higher in
>> dnetc. Unfortunately, it is impossible, as far as I understand. I must
>> use one UniKore 3GHz with Win98 OR SMP/Dual-core with Windows 2000/XP.
> No, it certainly is possible. All you need to do is write an OS that
> runs Windows 'under' it, on one of the CPUs. I'm not sure how it'll
> handle all the hardware stuff (or whether it's even possible to make a
> small amount of memory invisible from one of the CPUs) - that might have
> a performance penalty.
Are you talking about Virtual Machines, such as Virtual PC or SViSta.
>> ThirdKomp. Two M.A.D. PairKore 2.7GHz with any Windows NT 5.x, which
>> grab hipotetically 20% of CPU power. One 2.7GHz-core process game,
>> which require 2.7GHz, so 0% for dnetc. Another core process NT as
>> such, so 80% for dnetc. Others cores give full power to dnetc, so summ
>> is 280%. Of course, this is dumb scenario too, because expected smart
>> OS with ideal allocation of recources. Windows never be so smart. But
>> it's just model.
> The OS also typically doesn't do anything unless it needs to (idle cpu
> usage should be under 1% unless you're using a crappy OS like OSX).
All numbers are hipotetical.
> And games do not 'require' any amount of CPU time. They generally use as
> much as they can (I suppose they might sleep if the framerate is capped).
I mean: this game work fine on 2.7GHz and higher. So, using processor
higher than 2.7GHz is pointless. I get nothing upgrading it to 3.0GHz.
> And newer games probably have multiple threads (I suspect CS uses one
> thread for network traffic and general stuff when acting as a server).
> Newer games which don't are a bit stupid.
I understanded, that my model is stupid. But it is just model, greatly
oversimplified, not real situation. I won't to appreciate all nuances.
Open OS/2! (Members: 14; Rank: 1152; Blocks: 98311; Working: 347 days)
More information about the Hardware