Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU is Better -Dual Core OR with HT

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Dual Core
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2005 7:39:50 AM

I am ordering a new system & was wondering if I should get a P4 with dual core or with Hyper Threading.

I basically would be running some stock market applications which are computation intensive.

I do not run any games or graphics applications like Photoshop.

Help please.

Thanks

More about : cpu dual core

November 14, 2005 8:04:21 AM

same price? dual core....

For what you're doing i would use the dual core just because of the mulitple applications you will have open at one time....thats just my choice.
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2005 11:41:50 AM

welll sicne HT is the cheap way outta DC (not to mention intel's marketing scheme, who would have named their stuff hyper- if its not for impressing the press??), i'd say get DC....
Related resources
November 14, 2005 12:59:01 PM

Hyperthreading is a name for a CPU patch.
Willamette was doing so bad from the beginning, Intel had to do something to it. They patched the chip and their marketing made it look like Hyperthreading was a major invention.
November 15, 2005 4:32:03 PM

I see a huge price difference ( $200.00 ) between P4 D 3.0 GHz & P4 D 3.2 GHz.

How much of performance difference would I get for extra $ 200.00.

Should I buy more RAM ( 1.5 or 2.0 GB instead of 1.0 GB ) with that extra money and get better perfomance since I am running multiple applications?
November 15, 2005 6:20:26 PM

Quote:
How much of performance difference would I get for extra $ 200.00.
Not much, buy a 3.0GHz system and put the money you saved in hookers.
Quote:
Should I buy more RAM ( 1.5 or 2.0 GB instead of 1.0 GB ) with that extra money and get better perfomance since I am running multiple applications?
1GB will do just fine.
November 15, 2005 6:31:05 PM

Couldn't find a benchmark to show u but really not worth the 200.
November 15, 2005 6:31:48 PM

Quote:
Hyperthreading is a name for a CPU patch.
Willamette was doing so bad from the beginning, Intel had to do something to it. They patched the chip and their marketing made it look like Hyperthreading was a major invention.
Wow, as always, your information is incredibly wrong. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Hyperthreading was in Xeons long before it was in P4s. (The name is even quite reasonable as server marchitecture.) It was actually in Willy's core from the beginning, but was deactivated because Intel didn't think that it belonged in desktops. They had only intended it for servers, where multiple threads are as common as asian lady beetles.

But because they used much of the same process for making both Xeons and P4s the technology was in both, and soon people started unlocking HT in Willy's engineering samples, looking for it because it was already running on Xeons. At that point what could Intel do? Everyone knew that it was there. They had no choice but to release it for the P4 if they didn't want a lot of pissed off desktop customers. So they made it sound like some great thing, made mobo chipsets that could actually use it, and just stopped flipping that part of the proc off. And everyone was happy.

Well, everyone except for you, Era. :tongue:

No patch was ever made to the CPU. In fact, it was the opposite. An extra production step to deactivate HT was no longer being performed. Keeping HT out of the P4 was the patch. Giving the P4 HT was an anti-patch.
November 15, 2005 6:38:06 PM

Quote:
I basically would be running some stock market applications which are computation intensive.
Do you run more than one of these applications at the same time? Do you know how much memory these stock market applications use? Do you know if these applications are multi-threaded? Etc.
November 15, 2005 6:55:03 PM

Quote:
No patch was ever made to the CPU. In fact, it was the opposite. An extra production step to deactivate HT was no longer being performed. Keeping HT out of the P4 was the patch. Giving the P4 HT was an anti-patch.
Anti-patch. Well said, Mr. Marshmallow Rearend.
November 16, 2005 4:53:43 PM

Not exactly an answer, but my guess is it's a realtime stock market application. Never used one but if it helps.
November 16, 2005 5:08:39 PM

Quote:
Anti-patch. Well said, Mr. Marshmallow Rearend.
Why thank you. Does this kilt make me arse look too big? I wanna look good for ya on our first date. **smoochies**
November 16, 2005 5:09:51 PM

Quote:
Not exactly an answer, but my guess is it's a realtime stock market application. Never used one but if it helps.
:? Nope. Not any help. I don't know anything about them. Sorry.
November 16, 2005 5:12:54 PM

well i am figuring if it's realtime, it's going to rely on internet which relies on hard drive. It's also going to rely on caching / memory to update and load common files and new information. And the processor's got to be decent if there's going to be graphing since i know scrolling through a word or pdf document with an older P4 tends to lag up or take too long to load the next page. Mind u it may be a few seconds but if we are talking stock, then every second counts.
November 16, 2005 5:57:44 PM

It would be better to get an AMD-based system rather than an Intel-based system...
November 16, 2005 10:34:34 PM

It depends on whether the application you are using is multi-threaded. If it is then a dual core will definitely be better. If the program is not multi-threaded then you can achieve higher performance by going with a faster single-core HT processor. Single-cores are offered at higher clock speeds, up to 3.8GHz, while dual-cores are only up to 3.2GHz. HT would also offer some performance benefit to single-core processors if you do run a multi-threaded application. Of course, this only applies to Intel processors.
!