Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Please note that the 4th to the last sentence should have read
Hypertransport versus Hyperthreading. I apologize for not checking more
thoroughly before sending.
Bobby
"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:uQN0TsAiEHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Nathan;
>
> I agree that there has been some progress with HT, but with AMD and Intel
> migrating to Hypertransport for the x86, I see little potential for
> further development of HT. The advantage of Hypertransport is that it
> does not require that software be recompiled to use it. Intel has
> confirmed that it's x86 extensions will conform to the standards developed
> by AMD, and Hyperthreading is one of those standards.
>
> I still maintain that unless you are a "power user" and you use
> predominantly those apps that currently work with HT, then it is probably
> better to have HT disabled. For the majority of people, who buy their
> computer to do email, VIM, surf the web, d/l music and make CDs, then Ht
> is definitely not needed.
>
> If you remember the introduction of the NetBurst P5 architecture, we were
> promised that by this point in time we would be using 10 GHz processors.
> But the engineers quickly learned the limitations of the 586 die, which is
> why we have been stuck at the 3 Ghz level for so long. HT was supposed to
> be another tool to squeeze out a little more performance, and the idea and
> intentions are good, but the software developers were not exactly chomping
> at the bit to recompile their code. Perhaps if HT had been introduced
> early in the development of the Pentium 4 (586) strategy, then it could
> have been much more successful. As it stands, HT is pretty much a moot
> issue, as is the Pentium 4. It is time to move on to other architectures
> (PCI express, Hyperthreading, x86 64 bit processing, etc).
>
> Please note that I do own HT procs myself, and I am not bashing it. I
> just think it's value has been blown completely out of proportion. I wish
> it could have lived up to it's promise.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:u$h1%23dAiEHA.356@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
>> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
>> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
>> differences between these two:
>> Old -
http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
>> New -
http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
>>
>> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
>> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
>> the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
>> no problems after this point.
>>
>> ----
>> Nathan McNulty
>>
>>
>> Nospam wrote:
>>> NoNoBadDog,
>>>
>>> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
>>> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
>>> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
>>> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
>>> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
>>> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
>>> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
>>> Hyperthreading.
>>>
>>> Nospam
>>>
>>> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>As a side note;
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
>>>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
>>>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
>>>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
>>>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
>>>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
>>>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
>>>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
>>>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
>>>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
>>>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
>>>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are
>>>> very worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if
>>>> I have hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>>>
>>>>Bobby
>>>>
>>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>>>>--
>>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>>>>www.coribright.com
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>>>>Hyperthreading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>>>>anyone help me please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram