X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=qNQCAmSYLIta9oJ9FSlbbcume2U2
	H5TyX0rqqp8mgTLJel1wSIp5OwcioUSht/KW7/quJOhRqQRLDmwRP5nAig7UED6T
	/wj93TO/qmFpsmB/79vdO1+SKpKkCQ2iuxqbHMjCDZaPA9/PGZXKscMqonNBMoUP
	6DgFcsW+wBs47jQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; s=default; bh=BPibZ5EoAMy5EDVr5iCGGU72Nns=; b=TC
	0PEf1KrWe7IzEjLnGbtis2BkPC5axS2+LtN2mgeQm6tstCaCYlKqe8x0iT5gJtyS
	MvHJlIA9McbDEQb1jbnhZlSgmqycj0og9s849f3c5z0LE2WdsgMhEm5Xz7WVKbW4
	o6/wUYKqsB76wstY0nudsUkA56mwAsmpQCR5U/FMk=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: etr-usa.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Subject: Re: Somebody having access to a Windows machine with > 64 CPUs?
From: Warren Young <wyml AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20150810160011.GC13029@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:23:52 -0600
Message-Id: <6E689F0D-F196-4D1B-B6FA-782A27AF936C@etr-usa.com>
References: <20150810160011 DOT GC13029 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7AGO1T7031952

On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
> 
> for testing, I need somebody running a small test program on a machine
> with more than 64 CPUs under Windows 7 or later.

I don’t think that’s possible today.  Windows 7 Professional is limited to 2 physical processors and 256 cores, so the only way to get the result you want is a 2x33+ core system without Hyperthreading, or a 2x17+ core system with HT.

Source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

The lesser versions of Windows 7 also have 256-core limits, but only allow 1 physical processor, so you’d need a 65+ core processor without HT, or 33+ with HT.

According to Newegg, the biggest ones available today are 16-core, so you can just barely hit 64 on Win7 Pro with HT, today.

I think you need to wait another processor generation to break 64 logical cores under Windows 7.

The contemporaneous version of Server is, I believe 2008 R2, which has 4+ socket limits in all but the Foundation version, which would let you get to your 72 or 96 logical processor counts with today’s processors.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008_R2#Editions
--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple