Does anyone know the switch that a person uses to make there CPU process in a single, double or quad format? It was a word followed by a slash and a number (representing the amount of processes). For example: xxxx /2 or xxxx /3
This link http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/how-to-set-processor-affinity-to-an-application-in-windows/ may be what you are looking for.
I'm not quite sure why you would want that.
You can adjust the affinity for how each program runs. Go to task manager, then in the "processes" tab you can right click on any single program, and select "Affinity...". From there you can make it so each program only runs on one processor.
I believe what we are trying to do, is have the software pull from all procsessors
as if it was a single core, not a quad
You should see the processor load split between each processor, are you not seeing that? Windows (or the chip itself? I don't know) should automatically be spreading the computations, and you should see the load graph for each processor rise together.
Now, if you are doing something that is single threaded (like rebuilding parts in SolidWorks), it can only process one thing at a time. Thus you are never going to get it above 25% total load, it will just be swapping that full load between each of the processors.
Default is that all programs will have the ability to run on any core. A person would go into the affinity settings in order to tell a program not to use specific core. If I am doing a large render in PhotoView 360 and still trying to work in SW on something else, I will change PV to only run on 3 cores so that my 4th core will handle other tasks I am doing and not slow my system down too much by working and rendering at the same time.
The key here is knowing programs will only run on 1 core (even if you have more) like SW and what programs will run on all of your cores like PV.
That's good to know. Now when I've got something scanning and processing the scans, I can make it so that a couple of cores are free for me to use SW.
Thanks for that info, even though I wasn't the one to ask
Retrieving data ...