Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,374

    dual core and HyperThread

    AMD released their dual core desktop chip and Intel is probably not going to be too far behind.

    would you get a 4 cpu server/sup up desktop if you enabled HyperThread on the cpu? how will that work? two chip and two virtual chip? how come AMD doesn't have something similar to HyperThread. is it Intel's only technology?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,175
    AMD do not have something similar to Hyperthreaded technology as they have said they think it is a temporary solution to the problem of ever-improving chip performance.

    ie. rather than do HT tech, they worked on full dual-core. Now dual core is ready to go, expect to see more dual-cores than HTs.

    Yes, you would get a 4 CPU setup if you have a dual core chip, each core having HT enabled. I'm not sure they do this though - you can have a HT chip or a dual-cire chip (but I'd like to know if I'm wrong here)

  3. #3
    Dual Core > HT (basically Intel wasted time doing HT technology, while AMD went for a better solution, dual core).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    256
    silly n00bs. Intel didn't "waste time". HT doesn't suck power, nor use lots of energy. Both things that dual core would do. Not to mention all the overhead, processing headaches, etc. Dual core was a GREAT idea for the desktop user. ESPECIALLY with the long pipelined technology "netburst" that intel went for with the P4.

    Is dual core better? Possibly, but that in no way makes HT any "worse". That's like saying "Is ftp or scp better?" Two completely different protocols with two completely different uses, even if they can get the same job accomplished.

  5. #5
    Intel Pentiumฎ D Processor 820 2.8GHz, 800MHz FSB, Socket 775, 2x1MB Cache Does not have Hyperthreading its a true dual core processor. Amd hasn't even released theres yet. The only new dual core Intel that will have Hyperthreading will be the Extreme Edition and I think a few Xeons. So as of now Intel is the first to the market with a true dual core processor. Plus the cheapest dual core Amd will be 500 to 600 were ther intel will be 300 to 350.

  6. #6
    ergh, managed to post in wrong thread

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,374
    if i'm not mistaking HyperThread was used in Xeon long before dual core and Intel bring it into P4. so...HT already been tested and improved Intel's cpu speed. i don't think it was a wasted of R&D since it did work.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NY & PA
    Posts
    850
    Dual core is not a good as you think... just go and buy the MaximumPC mag and you see....

    They have most inside news on both intel and AMD in Junes mad...

    Heres a quote from there mag ( intel could be hurt from this again. )

    Question: Will these CPU's fit my AMD or Intel motherboard.

    Answers:

    AMD:
    If you own Socket 939 mothboard capable of running Athlon 64 FX-55, you're good to go... Just need BIO's update.

    Intel:
    With a Intel mobo, unfortunately you're pretty much SOL. You will need a dual-core capable chipset to run the new chips. Even though the dual-cores are socket 775 processors.

    Intel tells us a lack of dual-core support is an inherent limitation within 915/925x/925xe chipset family.

    The 925xe chipset is practically brand-new. Si, if you just bought an intel board in the immortal words of handy andy. " it sucks for you "
    Robert Merrihue - President/CEO
    http://www.bethehost.com
    Where resellers become a host on servers we own and operate.
    Web Hosting Since 2000 *** 12+ Years in the hosting industry

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,556
    I may be showing my ignorance here, but here's how I understand the difference between dual core and hyperthreading.

    Dual Core = Pretty much two CPUs in one physical socket, therefore, for most practical processes, two CPUs. Generally an 80% - 100% Gain in processing power.

    Hyper Threading = One CPU with a neat trick, that if there is any extra clock cycles not being used, it utilizes them to run a second thread. Some times works, sometimes doesn't, doesn't really provide the equivilent of two CPUs and sometimes hurts performance, based on the app, generally a 20% gain.

    Once again, I haven't looked alot at the dual core technologies yet.
    James Lumby

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371

    Re: dual core and HyperThread

    Originally posted by jt2377
    AMD released their dual core desktop chip and Intel is probably not going to be too far behind.

    would you get a 4 cpu server/sup up desktop if you enabled HyperThread on the cpu? how will that work? two chip and two virtual chip? how come AMD doesn't have something similar to HyperThread. is it Intel's only technology?
    Hyperthreading is time sharing the same CPU, and there is an overhead.

    Dual core is actually two CPUs.

    I think dual core will be very beneficial to us. We can buy one dual core, it will perform the same as a 2P machine, but we save on motherboard (2p boards are at least $250), power supply and cooling.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,374

    Re: Re: dual core and HyperThread

    Originally posted by wm2100
    Hyperthreading is time sharing the same CPU, and there is an overhead.

    Dual core is actually two CPUs.

    I think dual core will be very beneficial to us. We can buy one dual core, it will perform the same as a 2P machine, but we save on motherboard (2p boards are at least $250), power supply and cooling.
    i do agree dual core is better than HyperThread but Intel did have HT for quite sometime and it did show the improvment on cpu itself.

    is HT an exclusvie technology from Intel? i tho both Intel and AMD have cross liscense each other on x86-64?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    AMD said hyperthreading is only useful for INTEl P4 because it has 33 stage pipeline (a instruction is doen in 33 clock cycles), AMD Opteron has only 12 stages, so no time for hypertherading.

    the next generation of INTEL cpus will base on Pentium III and hyperthreading won't be availble.

  13. #13
    Originally posted by wm2100
    AMD said hyperthreading is only useful for INTEl P4 because it has 33 stage pipeline (a instruction is doen in 33 clock cycles), AMD Opteron has only 12 stages, so no time for hypertherading.

    the next generation of INTEL cpus will base on Pentium III and hyperthreading won't be availble.

    What?? My understanding is the new dual core processor from intel which just hit the market is 2 presscotts which is P4 cores with no hyperthreading. But the extreme edition will have hyperthreading.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    542

    Re: dual core and HyperThread

    Actually, it's AMD that was behind.  Intel has already shipped dual core chips for a while.

    Originally posted by jt2377
    AMD released their dual core desktop chip and Intel is probably not going to be too far behind.

    would you get a 4 cpu server/sup up desktop if you enabled HyperThread on the cpu? how will that work? two chip and two virtual chip? how come AMD doesn't have something similar to HyperThread. is it Intel's only technology?
    Voicegateway.com Web Services - High-performance Hosting & Fully Managed Servers
    Specializing in Virtual Machine Hosting with Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Windows SharePoint Services, Microsoft SQL Server 2005, ASP.NET 2.0 hosting and Newsletter/Mailing list services

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    542
    Be careful on terminology - dual cores have dual CPU's but that is not the same as "dual chips" in one die.  Modern processor chips have more than just CPU such as cache, memory controllers, i/o bridges, address translation/lookup assist, etc.

     

    Originally posted by lumbyjj
    I may be showing my ignorance here, but here's how I understand the difference between dual core and hyperthreading.

    Dual Core = Pretty much two CPUs in one physical socket, therefore, for most practical processes, two CPUs. Generally an 80% - 100% Gain in processing power.

    Hyper Threading = One CPU with a neat trick, that if there is any extra clock cycles not being used, it utilizes them to run a second thread. Some times works, sometimes doesn't, doesn't really provide the equivilent of two CPUs and sometimes hurts performance, based on the app, generally a 20% gain.

    Once again, I haven't looked alot at the dual core technologies yet.
    Voicegateway.com Web Services - High-performance Hosting & Fully Managed Servers
    Specializing in Virtual Machine Hosting with Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Windows SharePoint Services, Microsoft SQL Server 2005, ASP.NET 2.0 hosting and Newsletter/Mailing list services

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    This is a good page desribing dual cores

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2397&p=2

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,517
    AMD's dual core CPU emulates HyperThreading to take advantage of programs that utilize HyperThreading.

    ESPECIALLY with the long pipelined technology "netburst" that intel went for with the P4.
    You must be relatively clueless how CPU's work. A longer pipeline is the worst thing for a CPU, it decreases the work per cycle due to the longer pipeline. Intels Netburst design was the worst hardware technological invention in the past two years.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Did you read my previous post? the whole INTEL pentium 4 and xeon design team have abandoned ship and went to a new startup, and INTEL's VP of server cpu group also sought greener grasslands

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Interesting comments from INTEL on dual core:
    http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...elshare_1.html

    The difference between the dual-core Pentium D processor and Yonah is also quite stark, Eden said in response to a reporter's question.

    "You are asking me what is the difference between a microprocessor and a donkey," he said.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    256
    Originally posted by vigor
    AMD's dual core CPU emulates HyperThreading to take advantage of programs that utilize HyperThreading.



    You must be relatively clueless how CPU's work. A longer pipeline is the worst thing for a CPU, it decreases the work per cycle due to the longer pipeline. Intels Netburst design was the worst hardware technological invention in the past two years.
    Right, except it spent the majority of it's life outperforming anything AMD had to offer. OH SNAP!

  22. #22
    Either way we're in for a real treat... With AMD nipping at Intels heels, you can bet there'll be an agressive technological campaign.

    Keep in mind its competition that drives innovation. Intel got lazy and gave AMD an opportunity to catch up, which they did. With Intel's p4 team gone, that leaves the work to a whole new group of people with a whole new set of idea's. The fat cats at intel should realize by now that market trends are starting to shift. HyperThreading is a cool technology, but it isn't revolutionary. HyperTransport is a new take on old school tech but don't count out the Best of them, RISC processors. So now we have a bigger selection than before...

    Considering we're somewhat at a standstill technologically, prepare for some real innovation. Intel guys left to make a startup, and I believe we're in another tech boom lead by Google, remember during the dot com days it was lead by Ebay. There are many places now that are having tech booms and there are still plenty of startups in Cali and even spreading to other states because of cheaper operational costs.

    Intel vs. AMD, does it really matter? As long as they drive down costs and continue to make improvements to the technology to help make our jobs easier. It'll continue to be a back n forth battle, until AMD is at a similar level as Intel... or one goes down... It's business...

    In the end do the chips really matter? Or is it the applications that people write for the hardware that really counts?

  23. #23
    Originally posted by wm2100
    Did you read my previous post? the whole INTEL pentium 4 and xeon design team have abandoned ship and went to a new startup, and INTEL's VP of server cpu group also sought greener grasslands
    The ship is not sinking so "abandoned ship" is probably far from accurate.
    ••• Like us on Facebook to qualify for discounts! •••
    ••• http://www.sprintserve.net •••
    ••• Offering: | Internap FCP Bandwidth! | Rebootless Kernel Updates! | Magento Optimized Hosting | Wordpress Hosting | •••
    ••• Services: | Managed Multiple Cores 64bit Servers | Server Management | •••

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,181
    Intel definitely didn't waste their time ... they've been making money off of HT chips for a very very long time.

    Also, as previously mentioned, dual cores will generate more heat, draw more power and AMD's dual cores cost a lot of money.

    I thikn you might think of dual core as 2 cpu's in 1 without twice the cache, fsb etc

    On another note, can someone explain the FSB between the AMD dual cores and the Xeons (mp's not the usualy 512k cache or even 1-2mb noconas)
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    INTEL is about 3 years behind AMD in microprocessor technology now. All INTEl is doing now is trying to copy AMD, so far INTEL has copied 64 bit instructions and NX bit, but there are a lot more to copy, including hypertransport, embedded mem controller, direct connect archictecture and multi-core design. INTEL is going to have something similar to hypertransport in 2007, and probably some embedded memory controller in late 2006. Their multicore design is going to improve sometime in 2006.

    Right now, AMD is just too strong for INTEL, AMD has a 300% performance lead according to SUN:

    From the benchmarks below, a 4P Opteron outperforms 16P xeon.



    www.sap.com/benchmark


    HP ProLiant DL585, 4-way SMP, Dual-core AMD Opteron processor Model 875 2.2 GHz, 128 KB L1 cache, 1 MB L2 cache

    Score: 178000

    ---

    IBM xSeries 445 Model 8870-42X, 8-way SMP, Intel Xeon MP 3.0 GHz, 20 KB L1 cache, 512 KB L2 cache, 4 MB L3 cache

    Score: 116670

    -------

    IBM xSeries 445 Model 8870-4RX, 16-way SMP, Intel Xeon MP 2.8 GHz, 20 KB L1 cache, 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache

    Score: 152330

    --------
    Unisys ES7000 Model Orion 540, 16-way SMP, Intel XEON MP 3.0 GHz, 20 KB L1 cache, 512 KB L2 cache, 4 MB L3 cache

    Score: 141670

    ----------
    HP Integrity Model rx7620, 8-way SMP, Intel Itanium 2 1.5 GHz, 32 KB L1 cache, 256 KB L2 cache, 6 MB L3 cache

    Score: 125000

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •