John Bowden wrote: > On Monday 26 November 2007 03:18:23 Chris Mauritz wrote: > >> Scott Silva wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if Windows XP will do 8 cpu's. >>> >> I don't think it will. I was under the impression that the non-server >> incarnations were limited to two physical cpus. (Which could >> theoretically get you to 8 cores with quad-core processors). >> > > I think it sees each core as a cpu. so it will not use quad core or two dual > cores on one board efficiently. > Windows considers cpu sockets for licensing purposes only. XP Pro is enabled for two sockets, while Windows Server is enabled for more. the NT kernel that its based on can run on up to 16 or more cpu cores, however it has many of the same issues with kernel resource blocking and such as linux, such that its a rare desktop workload which will actually keep 8 cores busy. Looking at the applications the original poster gave, they are mostly highly interactive programs (adobe graphic software, mathematica, etc), I'm not sure what benefit more than 2 or maybe 4 cores would have with that workload. Sure, a few filters in photoshop can take several seconds to run on large prepress jobs, and if you're a really advanced PS user, you might actually build a complex macro stack and run it on a big batch of pictures in the background, that might tie up a couple CPUs for the several minutes it takes to run... Yes, I know large complex tasks in mathematica can run for seconds or even minutes, but most of the time most of that software is sitting waiting for user input.