[Neil Jones]

Pentium III processors are not and never have been dual-core. Dual-core is two brains on one processor, dual-processor is two physical processors. They are not the same thing and only the first processor will be seen and used under XP Home anyway.
Performance wise it'll still suck compared to current processors, though file-sharing wise it'll be adequate anyway.

uummm what?? YES I already agreed its not a TRUE dual core BUT dual means 2 just bc they are seperate doesnt mean its not a dual core.

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument with you because I'm above that, suffice to say your set-up is not dual core in any way, shape or form, it is dual-processor. If you had a true dual-core system with two processors you'd be seeing four processors in that list, not two.

Second ur wrong about XP not seeing the processor...

XP Pro sees two physical processors with no problem. You're running XP Pro. I said XP Home wouldn't see it, but XP Home will work on dual-core processors. Please read my post again.

Notice how it says a DUAL-CORE processor contains TWO cores. IE=2 processors...LOL

Wiki is not gospel, anybody can edit it to put facts in. And your quote from Wiki completely blows your interpretation of your set-up out of the water.

[Advertisements]

WOW do u not know what a core is???

without the core there is no processor! LOL thats where the processor goes moron. Jeesh how old are u anyway? Ive been doing this stuff for over 20 years! As in I have been a computer tech for most of that time. Please save the pissing contest for the kids.

AS I SAID Before....I know its not a TRUE dual core at least by ur definition...how many times must I say it?

The CORE is what holds the processor....just bc a dual core can hold 2 processors in one core doenst mean anything.

Ur trying to say that since I have two cores I should have 4 processors?? NO

I have two cores two processors. PERIOD...hence look it up in the dictionary...A Dual CORE processor as in consisting of TWO core and TWO processors. It DOESNT HAVE to be on one core to be a dual core nor would it make sense....see the core HOLDS the processor...so in effect REALLY a dual core really isnt TWO cores it just holds TWO processors on one.

Put that in ur pipe and smoke it!

Anyway lets not argue.......theres no point online to argue bc it will never end as i cant actually do anything to u physically...not too mention thats not what this forum is here for.....fighting.


You have ur opininion and i have mine so lets leave at that after ur next response

Edited by zero061099, 06 April 2008 - 04:44 PM.

[zero061099]

WOW do u not know what a core is???

without the core there is no processor! LOL thats where the processor goes moron. Jeesh how old are u anyway? Ive been doing this stuff for over 20 years! As in I have been a computer tech for most of that time. Please save the pissing contest for the kids.

AS I SAID Before....I know its not a TRUE dual core at least by ur definition...how many times must I say it?

The CORE is what holds the processor....just bc a dual core can hold 2 processors in one core doenst mean anything.

Ur trying to say that since I have two cores I should have 4 processors?? NO

I have two cores two processors. PERIOD...hence look it up in the dictionary...A Dual CORE processor as in consisting of TWO core and TWO processors. It DOESNT HAVE to be on one core to be a dual core nor would it make sense....see the core HOLDS the processor...so in effect REALLY a dual core really isnt TWO cores it just holds TWO processors on one.

Put that in ur pipe and smoke it!

Anyway lets not argue.......theres no point online to argue bc it will never end as i cant actually do anything to u physically...not too mention thats not what this forum is here for.....fighting.


You have ur opininion and i have mine so lets leave at that after ur next response

Edited by zero061099, 06 April 2008 - 04:44 PM.

[Troy]

The CORE is what holds the processor....just bc a dual core can hold 2 processors in one core doenst mean anything.

Hi there,

Your description here actually sounds like a motherboard - or more specifically, the socket on the motherboard. That's what holds the processor.

You claim to be a tech with 20 years experience, so you need to ensure your jargon is more technically correct. There are plenty of users who read these forums to try and gain as much information as they can - from people like you and me - who have the skills, knowledge, and experience.

Cheers

Troy

[wannabe1]

Neil and troy are correct in what they have stated. Your cores are each on their own die so they are not multi-core processors. You have a dual processor setup.

You are very unlikely to find a flash for the BIOS on a board that old. If you are lucky and you know what you're looking for, you may be able to find a more recent chip that will work...but I wouldn't hold my breath.

zero061099: If I see any more of the flaming attitude, there may be some posting restrictions applied.

[John Hook]

Hey guys!

Can't we all just get along?

Sounds like zero has a motherboard that supports TWO physical Pentium III processors. Multi-processing systems / motherboards based on Intel CPUs have been around since the 80386 CPU. Consumer operating systems that support this hardware, however, has only been around since Windows XP. Prior to XP, you had to be running a proprietary, Multi-Processor version of Unix (DYNIX) on a Sequent box in order to support multiple Intel X-86 CPUs. Now that NT/XP/200/Vista are in play - OS support for 2 or more processors has been available on the consumer market for several years.

I think everyone here is getting caught up on the term "core". Intel's branding of their "Core 2 Duo" processors implies that "CORE" means processors imbedded on a single chip. I believe if zero had been more specific - i.e. said that his motherboard has TWO Pentium III sockets, it could have spared everyone here from the back and forth bickering over this whole issue.

That's my two cents for what it's worth.

- John Hook

[zero061099]

Neil and troy are correct in what they have stated. Your cores are each on their own die so they are not multi-core processors. You have a dual processor setup.

You are very unlikely to find a flash for the BIOS on a board that old. If you are lucky and you know what you're looking for, you may be able to find a more recent chip that will work...but I wouldn't hold my breath.

zero061099: If I see any more of the flaming attitude, there may be some posting restrictions applied.

THATS WHAT I SAID in the beginning-that its a PIII dual-core processor setup! Jeesh! A couple of people were like no its not. thats what the conversation is about BUT I did find out that I do have the latest bios thats available.

Thanks to all for your input and help. I am going to clock this against me AMD dual core 1.6 and see what i get...lol.

Edited by zero061099, 07 April 2008 - 02:03 PM.

[Troy]

THATS WHAT I SAID in the beginning-that its a PIII dual-core processor setup! Jeesh!

Hi again,

Actually - as has been discussed and agreed - you don't have a dual-core setup at all. You have two processors with a single core on each. This setup is called dual-processor. Once again, please think carefully about the technical terms that you use, for the sake of more inexperienced users who are reading these forums.

I'm glad you found you have the latest BIOS, though. Has it helped you fix your problem (i.e. why you were looking to update it in the first place)? Are you still having issues?

Cheers

Troy

[zero061099]

I have to retract one of my earlier statements as I wasnt exactly right....

The CPU is also known as the "Core" although some consider the socket part of the core.

ANYWAY the Term "Dual Core" goes like this.....

Dual =2

Core =Processor

See these companies have people brainwashed with this "Dual-core" Thing.

It doesnt matter if both processors are seperate or together on one die. Dual means two SO if you have 2 processors then you have a DUAL-CORE.

Have a nice day.

As far as my bios update it was already up to date. There really isnt any futher functionability but oh well stuff happens.

TTYL