Comments

Former user wrote on 4/26/2005, 7:00 AM
B_JM,

You have answered your own question...and I quote - from the article:

WORKAROUND
To switch to a uniprocessor HAL, reinstall the operating system.

The actual true "multiprocessor" HAL is designed for two "real" processors. An Intel "Hyperthreading" processor is still a single chip. All that is really happening here is this chip is asked to do twice the work - in a virtual sort of way....depending on what that unit of work is - you may see gains in some areas in Vegas...generally tho - I would rather have my single chip using all it's horsepower without the virtual division of labor that hyperthreading introduces.

With HT off in the BIOS - the only way to get a properly installed uniprocessor HAL and driver set is to reinstall.

As per the article....

VP
B_JM wrote on 4/26/2005, 7:12 AM
If the ACPI Multiprocessor HAL is currently installed you can change to the following options:
• Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC
• ACPI Multiprocessor
• MPS Multiprocessor

Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC and ACPI Uniprocessor have the same performance characteristics and by keeping Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC , it will allow you to switch back easier ..

as per MS
B_JM wrote on 4/26/2005, 7:57 AM
i just found another KB article on MS MSDN site that says do not install SQL sever/client on a HT or dual cpu system , then turn off HT or remove a CPU or SQL may likely crash ..

it is better to install SQL on a non HT system , then turn HT on (IF you plan on switching back and forth) , but in this case - performance is very slightly less perhaps (on HT)



mdopp wrote on 4/26/2005, 1:27 PM
Hm, I am running WinXP SP2 here on my P4 3,06 GHz HT.
However I have upgraded from a 2,5 GHz P4 (no HT) to 3,06 GHz HT about 6 month ago and did NOT reinstall WinXP. Simply changed the processor and that was it.
Still my task manager shows two processes running in parallel (and I've also used several test programs to confirm that HT is actually working as it should be).
How can that be if you need to reinstall XP to get the multiprocessor HAL ?
BTW, I don't have any stability issues with Vegas 6 (or Vegas 5).
B_JM wrote on 4/26/2005, 2:08 PM
you dont -- no one said that -- only some types of smp machines would that be an issue ..

busterkeaton wrote on 4/26/2005, 2:48 PM
and my system now feels light on it feet again and Vegas 6 is giving way better performance.

I haven't played too much with it, but if I have problems I will post back.

I turned rendering video from 4 threads to 1 and I shaved a minute off a project that 15 secs and had 24 tracks.
Zion wrote on 4/26/2005, 5:29 PM
I would really like to see the system of the guys that are having
problems with HT not being stable. None of you have posted yet.

That would be a way of getting to the root instead of all this theory
mumbo gumbo.

ZION
Laurence wrote on 4/27/2005, 8:08 AM
My system is one of those toaster sized Shuttle computers. I have a P4 3.06 with 2 gig of RAM, a Radeon 9000 graphics card, Sound Blaster Audigy Platinum Pro, and two 250 gig WD hard drives. I also have 5 external firewire hard drives that I use for Vegas projects. Three of these are Maxtors and two of them are Western Digital.
B_JM wrote on 4/27/2005, 8:14 AM
well that is your problem -- your motherboard is just to small

Laurence wrote on 4/27/2005, 8:51 AM
Yeah, I guess there just isn't room for two processes to be going on at once! ;-)
Orcatek wrote on 4/27/2005, 8:51 AM
I think the rendering really depends on the video.

I did some tests with 1-4 threads on a sample project.
Best time was 4 threads - worst 1.

This was on a 3.2 machine with HT on. The sample project would take about 8 minutes to render. Difference between best and worse was about 25 seconds. An interesting aside. Was did this test 3 times which each thread count. Existing Vegas between each render. The difference in render times between 3 test with the same thread count varied by 12 seconds.