1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Intel's Hyperthreading

Discussion in 'AMD Thunderbird' started by Paul, Nov 2, 2003.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    Is this hyperthreading all its cracked up to be? Does AMD have a anything
    similar to compete?

    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul

    Mike Walsh Guest

    Hyperthreading is way overrated. Early tests I have read show running processor intensive programs at the same time instead of in sequence will increase performance by up to 10% in some cases and decrease performance by 5% in other cases. The performance hit is blamed on the relatively small size of the level 2 cache. The newer chips with 1 MB or 2 MB L2 cache should help.
     
    Mike Walsh, Nov 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul

    J.Clarke Guest

    In principle a hyperthreaded CPU can handle two interrupts
    simultaneously, just as a dual processor machine can. In practice, as
    with all things hyperthreading, the efficiency with which it does so
    depends on whether the particular code blocks on one or more of the
    nonredundant elements in the pipelines.

    IMO this is potentially its greatest benefit, but it's mostly of use in
    I/O intensive environments, not memory- or calculation-intensive ones,
    which means that it's not going to be terribly useful for most "home"
    applications. It might, however, help analog video capture, which is
    essentially taking a bitstream from PCI device, possibly doing some
    processing on it, and moving it to another. But there it's only going to
    help if the PCI bus is not already saturated--a dual-bus machine might
    help there, but again you're getting into "serious server" territory and
    duals would probably be a viable option in such a machine.
     
    J.Clarke, Nov 2, 2003
    #3
  4. Paul

    Will Dormann Guest


    I could be wrong, but I think the main advantage of Hyperthreading is
    that it makes the computer *feel* faster by still retaining
    responsiveness under heavy CPU load. (rather than cutting down the
    time it takes to encode a video, for example)


    -WD
     
    Will Dormann, Nov 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Paul

    Mike Walsh Guest

    Probably true. A processor intensive application running in the backgroup should not affect the response of another program as much. This probably would have made a big difference a few years ago, but with a 2 Ghz or faster processor it should not make much of a difference. Intel's advertisements are pushing the idea of using a hyperthreading processor using a gigabit network, but most computers with heavy traffic on gigabit networks are servers with more than one processor, so this point may be moot.
     
    Mike Walsh, Nov 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Paul

    Ed Guest

    The short answer is No, not yet (2006?)
     
    Ed, Nov 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Paul

    ElJerid Guest

    processor intensive programs at the same time instead of in sequence will
    increase performance by up to 10% in some cases and decrease performance by
    5% in other cases. The performance hit is blamed on the relatively small
    size of the level 2 cache. The newer chips with 1 MB or 2 MB L2 cache should
    help.
    Ther is no statement-like answer to this question. First thing is that the
    programs you're running must support dual processing in order to see a
    valuable performance gain. Second thing is that the gain depends of the
    programs. There are some sites where the why and how are explained in
    detail, but the logic behind the process is complex.
    Finally, on top of pure performance gain, there is also the benefit of
    parallel processing.
    With my P4 / 800 - 2.4 GHz and HT enabled, I can consult my Email while
    rendering video in Premiere. No way to do this (without dropped frames)
    without hyperthreading!
     
    ElJerid, Nov 2, 2003
    #7
  8. Paul

    Will Dormann Guest


    Don't you mean *capturing* video? Rendering should not be affected by
    CPU load. The output file will be the same, but it'll just take longer
    to do.


    -WD
     
    Will Dormann, Nov 2, 2003
    #8
  9. Paul

    ElJerid Guest


    Right!
    It' s capturing as well as exporting.
    Thanks for correcting.
     
    ElJerid, Nov 2, 2003
    #9
  10. Paul

    DaveW Guest

    AMD does not have anything similar yet.
     
    DaveW, Nov 2, 2003
    #10
  11. Paul

    J.Clarke Guest

    AMD instead has three independent high-speed buses and 64-bit
    processing. Which beats hyperthreading all hollow.
     
    J.Clarke, Nov 3, 2003
    #11
  12. Paul

    Ed Guest

    AMD claims the K9 core will have it and dual cpu cores too, but that
    core is 2 years away if not longer, AMD doesn't need it right now , so
    they say. ;p

    Ed
     
    Ed, Nov 3, 2003
    #12
  13. Paul

    Paul Guest

    So, if I was considering a processor upgrade, AMD is still the way to go?


    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 3, 2003
    #13
  14. Paul

    ~misfit~ Guest

    If you're using AMD now and are happy with them (as I am) then yes. There is
    still life in the socket A format yet and their new 64bit CPUs look to be
    really good to. (Although not socket A)
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 3, 2003
    #14
  15. Paul

    kony Guest


    You haven't told us what you're currently running, what more you need
    of the machine, what's most important to you in a "PC", what the most
    demanding jobs are... random manufacturer selection is only good if
    you're offended by their competition, instead choose what's most
    beneficial to your needs.


    Dave
     
    kony, Nov 4, 2003
    #15
  16. Paul

    stacey Guest


    What he said... :)
     
    stacey, Nov 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Paul

    Paul Guest

    I'm currently using an Athlon Thunderbird 850mhz on an Abit KT7A board.

    I've found lately that the newer games need faster hardware so I definately
    need to upgrade.

    I like AMD and I've never had any problems with them before so I wouldn't be
    against buying AMD again.
    When I bought my current CPU, it was one of the fastest CPUs available so I
    would like to do the same again...get, not the fastest chip but one thats
    right up there.

    Ideally the chip will be 'future proof' for the next year/year and a half.
    I don't know if I need another board but I suspect so so any
    recommendations?



    Cheers,
    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 4, 2003
    #17
  18. Paul

    kony Guest

    You don't mention the budget, but honestly I think you'd be better off
    not buying near the fastest at any given time then waiting so long
    till you upgrade again. An AMD box would be fine for gaming.

    You're probably needing a new power supply, memory, (and video card?)
    as well, and maybe even extensive case rework or new case to
    accomodate higher heat output.

    Or, were you talking about an entire system already?

    I"m generally in favor of using hardware that's been in the market a
    while, had some time to mature and have a few BIOS updates to patch
    bugs. Along that line of thought you might consider an Athlon XP2800
    and nForce2 motherboard, 512MB or 1GB of PC2700-3200 memory.

    It won't be too long till the newer AMD chips are more reasonably
    priced, but right now they're not a very good value... depends on how
    long you want to wait till the upgrade I suppose, but going with an
    XP2800 now would save quite a bit of $, make it more afordable to
    update again, sooner than you did with current system.


    Dave
     
    kony, Nov 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Paul

    Wes Newell Guest

    Cheapest upgrade without much hassle is to get a 2100+ (must be Tbred B
    core) or 2400+ and just plug it in your KT7A board. It will default to
    2000MHz. 2100+ B core from newegg.com is $62 shipped. See link below for
    more info.
     
    Wes Newell, Nov 4, 2003
    #19
  20. Paul

    Phrederick Guest

    Just wondering...

    When doing the following at the same time, which would be a better choice -
    Intel or AMD64?

    - Unzipping CDRom image
    - Dowloading email
    - Scouring newsgroups with BNR2 or NewsBin
    - Burning a DVD
    - Copying files across 100mb LAN
    - Browsing

    ....lots of mutlitasking going on here, but the bottleneck is actually access
    to the hard drive.

    Where is the best place to improve response? SATA? RAID? Specific chipset?
    CPU type?
     
    Phrederick, Nov 6, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.