Is windows xp compatible with a quad core?

Post Reply New Topic

People I know have been claiming the best windows xp can handle is a dual core. I think that 64 bit edition should handle a quad just fine, and there is no reason why it wouldn't and would like a clear answer.

I can't see why Windows XP 32-bit, shouldn't be able to handle a Quad-Core either.
I have the Q6600, and if I run a quad-core stess test, it will max out the CPU to 100%.
So therefore it must be using it.

But to fully get the experience out of a new 64-bit processor, you would of cause need a 64-bit OS.
However, I would stick to 32-bit OS's as many software are not too happy with 64-bit, unless they are programmed for it.
Many 32-bit programs will run just fine in a 64-bit enviroment, but some are a plauge!

A good example would be Flash Player under 64-bit Linux.

Thanks, xp is much preferable to vista, and if I can scrape together money this summer I'll be getting a new computer. I think i can get at least $1500 doing odd jobs, and need 64 bit to use 6gb of ram, which if I can afford ill get.

Uhh... Nice... All I have is 2 GB of RAM.
I could use a little more, but I can't afford it, cause prices in Denmark are insane and I would also have to get a new motherboard, cause the old one I'm using right now supports Max. 2 GB. And if I get a new motherboard, I would probably have to reinstall my OS's, see where I'm going?

Not necessarily. I have 4 GB of RAM, but Vista 32-bit only reports seeing 3 GB as that's all it can handle. I can make it max out the RAM, but it's only maxing out the RAM that it sees. I'm not certain if it would do the same with the processor, though.


But then why buy a 64-bit processor? If you're going to use software intended for the last generation, just buy old junk computers on the cheap, or else get a crap netbook that only has a 32-bit processor.


It works fine for me in Ubuntu 64-bit, and it has for the past three releases. Not sure if it was worse before then as I only got into GNU/Linux last summer.

This is all speculation right now. I dont even know if ill actually get enough money for this or if the craptop has to hold out for another year.

I don't think it's the same, the reason for the RAM is because of "physical limitations" (32-bit architecture).
The limitation for the processor would be software then, and there is nothing a patch can't fix


1. Then you got it, and always have the possibility to upgrade your OS.
2. Your CPU would never get 100% stressed, meaning less heat (You don't really get any performace out of 64-bit, compared to 32... It's just the lenght of the instructions.)


Also fullscreen youtube videos??... HOW?!
And please tell me if you know how to get my X-Fi to work too

Yeah, works perfectly fine. Somebody wrote a shell script. http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/install-flash-10-ubuntu-linux-64bit.html
I've never heard of x-fi, but typing it into Google gives me suggestions specific to Ubuntu, so it's been dealt with in forum threads already. My audio drivers in Ubuntu suck, and I can't get any sort of volume.

Installs/works fine in 64 ubuntu. No script needed anymore. I just add restricted extras and get flash, java and codecs.

Windows xp will run fine on a quad. It might not normally make use of cores 3 and 4. Even vista is bad for that.

I have and Intel Quad core 9450 with 8 GB of RAM on an MSI motherboard with Windows XP 64 everything works great except sometimes crashes when you insert or remove a USB device.

I know it is Quad related as I have remove the processor and added a dual core E7400 and it has no issues with the USB devices.

I do not know why it happens but it does. I feel sad that Microsoft puts XP 64 bit out there but abandons it for Vista 64 bit.

I look at Vista the same as I looked at Windows ME 10 years ago, waste of time and energy.

Anyway that is the only issue we have with a quad core on XP 64.

Xp does not have the best memory management and you may find it difficult to make use of 4 gigs, let alone 6. People like to complain about vista hogging all the memory, but you buy memory to be used, not sit idle. Why buy a 300 horse power car but only use 150?

I've got 4 gigs in my Ubuntu 9.04 64bit machine, but its hard getting it to use even 1 gig. Even in my 2 gig ubuntu machine running a 32 bit OS, i've never had the cache accessed. In fact, I've stopped installing a cache partition at all.

I'm currently researching how to load the full 4.7(I bloat my installs) gigs of Ubuntu into ram at all times. The only disk access would be to my personal data. If I can do that i will install another 2 gigs of ram.

If you find out how, be sure to let me know. That could be a fun project.

There is lots of talk about doing so with a liveCD image, but thats no fun.

Windows XP Home can take dual core fine, but can not handle dual processors
Windows XP Professional can take dual core and probably more, and two physical processors.
Windows Vista x64 can take multiple cores, up to about 16 from what I have seen when I adjust affinity for some programs I believe don't need the extra core for.

Fuzzy:

This happens all the time. You NEVER use the maximum horsepower output ALL the time. The maximum horsepower is usually around 6500, but DOES vary by engine. Now, who drives with the throttle wide open all the time

ch1701a:
Are you using the "Safely remove hardware" function on your computer? If not, you will have problems. You will have even more so when the device uses the NTFS file system with the Master File Table on there. You can't just pull out such a device without it being safe. Data loss can occur.

I like the way people expect a 64bit computer to handle a 64bit application with ease, until they have problems, such as a 32bit OS... If you're using a 32bit OS, you have a 32bit computer as the OS lays the foundation for applications to run on top of

Har har. You know what I mean!

I use a Quad Core with Windows XP Home Edition.