H3nrik V! wrote:

I am a total sucker for everything multi-socketed. 😎

Me too and the last Quad I got was a DL580 G5, next a G7 with 80 CPUs 😁 Here is the G5 benchmark and as a comparison my current desktop.

Old PC Hunter wrote:

I possibly want to build a system running four or eight of these processors

I definitely want you to built it!
Posting here confirming my jealousy and for future updates 😀

I could provide benchmarks for Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3) and Proliant 6400 (4x P3). Problem running Windows on one of these is that you need High end Windows Versions like Datacenter edition to get support for more than 2/4 CPUs. Most of my systems are running Linux for this reason, but some are running advanced Versions of W2K.
eisapc

eisapc wrote:

I could provide benchmarks for Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3) and Proliant 6400 (4x P3). Problem running Windows on one of these is that you need High end Windows Versions like Datacenter edition to get support for more than 2/4 CPUs. Most of my systems are running Linux for this reason, but some are running advanced Versions of W2K.
eisapc

Thats actually not true, in windows 2000 just add reg and it will support up to 65,536 cores

you also need to install BWC (blackwingcat) kernel and extended core.
Latest version English (v3.0e)
latest extended coreEnglish (v16a
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager]
"RegisteredProcessors"=dword:00040960

Install win2k

- Install IE6SP1

- Install Windows 2000 SP4 SRP1v2
- Install IE6.0SP1-KB2817183-WINDOWS2000-X86 and KB951748-v2
- Install exKernel
- Install VC++ Runtimes
- Install extended core

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja& … %2F1299806.html

Warlord wrote:

Thats actually not true, in windows 2000 just add reg and it will support up to 65,536 cores

No it won't all 32-bit versions of windows are limited to 32 CPUs.

x64 Server 2008 R2 supports 256 CPUs and I think the latest x64 Server 2019 supports 640.

eisapc wrote:

Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3)

I would love to know how my SIV utility does on these two systems, please will you try it? See SIV support for 386/486/586 class + Alpha CPUs and 3dfx + S3 + SiS + Matrox + XGI + old ATI + NVidia GPUs - Testing Help

eisapc wrote:

I could provide benchmarks for Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3) and Proliant 6400 (4x P3). Problem running Windows on one of these is that you need High end Windows Versions like Datacenter edition to get support for more than 2/4 CPUs. Most of my systems are running Linux for this reason, but some are running advanced Versions of W2K.
eisapc

Could you also provide pictures? I would simply loooove to see those systems!

Did not know about these patches, may try this later.

Providig some pictures is easier than the benchmarks. The systems are actually piled up after the at move and may take some time to be up and running again.
Maybe I find the tim during the upcomming months to run SIV utility as well.
If I find one more 900 MHz/ 2 MB P3 Xeon I could swap the 700 MHz /1 MB in one of the Netservers LT 6000r for comparison.
eisapc

red-ray wrote:

No it won't all 32-bit versions of windows are limited to 32 CPUs. […]
Show full quote

Warlord wrote:

Thats actually not true, in windows 2000 just add reg and it will support up to 65,536 cores

No it won't all 32-bit versions of windows are limited to 32 CPUs.

x64 Server 2008 R2 supports 256 CPUs and I think the latest x64 Server 2019 supports 640.

eisapc wrote:

Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3)

I would love to know how my SIV utility does on these two systems, please will you try it? See SIV support for 386/486/586 class + Alpha CPUs and 3dfx + S3 + SiS + Matrox + XGI + old ATI + NVidia GPUs - Testing Help

but I don't want that to detract from the point I was making you can run 32 cpu on windows 2000 any version with the info i provided.

In my experience, adding more cores in Win2000 makes single-threaded performance go down. Threads keep shuffling from one core to another and cached data that changed probably has to be reloaded. This is from my comparison of Athlon/Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 CPUs in the same system. It would be cool if there was a software fix for this but I haven't found one. I read in a comment somewhere that later versions of Windows don't have this issue anymore.

Warlord wrote:

red-ray wrote:

Warlord wrote:

Thats actually not true, in windows 2000 just add reg and it will support up to 65,536 cores

No it won't all 32-bit versions of windows are limited to 32 CPUs.

but I don't want that to detract from the point I was making you can run 32 cpu on windows 2000 any version with the info i provided.

The point I am making is your statement is incorrect and misleading, it's also pointless as we are talking about 8 CPUs.

As for the Windows 2000 extended kernel then I recommend against using this. I know for a fact that if a program calls GetFirmwareEnvironmentVariable() the kernel crashes as I needed to adjust SIV to compensate for this bug. I made all of the AIDA64 + CPUZ + HWiNFO developers aware of the issue and they also adjusted their code. While looking into this issue I got as far as trying to download it and my virus checking software reported it contained threats!

eisapc, I expect those systems will all run Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Terminal Server which is good for 8 CPUs. It came with MSDN subscriptions so you could use an MSDN activation key. I think SIV will run from the 2003 pre-install environment (I know it does from the Windows 7 one), so you could run SIV from a USB flash drive without even installing Windows.

Windows 2003 also has ccNUMA support and a more sophisticated scheduler so programs don't keep switching CPU for no good reason. Obviously the SIV CPU benchmark sets affinity so works equally well on 2000 and 2003.

I ran the SIV CPU benchmark my Dell 6300 and as below, I suspect the 900MHz P-IIIs will be a tad over double the speed.

The colours are poor as the Rage 3D Pro GPU can only use 8-bit colours @ 1280 x 1024.

While looking into this issue I got as far as trying to download it and my virus checking software reported it contained threats!

I'm not suprised that an unofficial patch which replaces system files would trigger anti-virus heuristics. Nobody else should be either.

eisapc wrote:

Netserver LR (6x P3)

I don't recognize this one. Are you sure that isn't a misprint?

Errius wrote:

eisapc wrote:

Netserver LR (6x P3)

I don't recognize this one. Are you sure that isn't a misprint?

I guess a typo and assume it's a http://www.hp.com/ecomcat/hpcatalog/specs/D9200A.htm or similar

bakemono wrote:

While looking into this issue I got as far as trying to download it and my virus checking software reported it contained threats!

I'm not suprised that an unofficial patch which replaces system files would trigger anti-virus heuristics. Nobody else should be either.

I'm 100% sure it's a false positive.. Take it up with BWC on MSFN if there is legitimate concern. 2000 extended core is nothing short of amazing and its kept windows 2000 alive for many people around the world.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex- … ge/81/#comments

eisapc wrote:

I could provide benchmarks for Proliant 8500 (8x P3) Netserver LR (6x P3) and Proliant 6400 (4x P3).

Once you get those systems up and running I would really like to see multi-CPU benchmarks for them. Those servers sound pretty awesome!