Windows Server 2003 Standard on Quad Core CPU

[Guest Eric]

Hi,

 

I know that Win2K3 STD support 4 CPU. But what about core ? If I have 4 quad

core CPU, is that meen Win2K3 STD support 16 cores ?

 

I didn't find a reference on Microsoft website. Someone can confirm and have

a reference link ?

 

Thanks.

[Guest Mark Dormer]

Re: Windows Server 2003 Standard on Quad Core CPU

 

"Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C9DBF52F-DF23-4F6B-AA01-7FCF0BE00B72@microsoft.com...

> Hi,

>

> I know that Win2K3 STD support 4 CPU. But what about core ? If I have 4 quad

> core CPU, is that meen Win2K3 STD support 16 cores ?

>

> I didn't find a reference on Microsoft website. Someone can confirm and have

> a reference link ?

>

> Thanks.

 

For MS a processor is a processor whether 1, 2 or 4 cores.

 

You need a software license for each physical processor in the server. from

http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/ProductPage.aspx?pid=128

 

There is also a chap talking here about it.

http://video.intel.com/?fr_story=068d2b9cfda644ba412174b67d6e1d5736c8e90b&rf=sitemap

 

--

Regards

Mark Dormer

[Guest Eric]

Re: Windows Server 2003 Standard on Quad Core CPU

 

 

 

"Mark Dormer" wrote:

> "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C9DBF52F-DF23-4F6B-AA01-7FCF0BE00B72@microsoft.com...

> > Hi,

> >

> > I know that Win2K3 STD support 4 CPU. But what about core ? If I have 4 quad

> > core CPU, is that meen Win2K3 STD support 16 cores ?

> >

> > I didn't find a reference on Microsoft website. Someone can confirm and have

> > a reference link ?

> >

> > Thanks.

>

> For MS a processor is a processor whether 1, 2 or 4 cores.

>

> You need a software license for each physical processor in the server. from

> http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/ProductPage.aspx?pid=128

>

> There is also a chap talking here about it.

> http://video.intel.com/?fr_story=068d2b9cfda644ba412174b67d6e1d5736c8e90b&rf=sitemap

>

> --

> Regards

> Mark Dormer

>

 

Thanks Mark.