mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
Think about this logically - Intel are ditching their own HyperThreading technology in favour of Dual Core for their next generation of processors.

Even Intel thinks dual core is better.
 

SidVicious

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2002
1,271
0
19,280
for the netburst, i think they didn't want to give a dual core setup with ht so easily, then why would xeons be wanted? wouldn't it make sense to save it for the extreme edition? that seems more logical to me. and maybe the new architecture doesn't call for it, cause remember, it is totally different now. and i have read rumors in the forums that they will put hyper threading and netburst later all in one. i don't totally believe that, or know if that is even possible, but i leave that it might just be an option on later processors. as for the "ditching" of hyper threading, you got to watch more carefully then that. we have yet to see some serious benchmarking on the paxville xeons... kind of leaves me in wonder about that.

Here you go

It is a short review but does get the point across.
 

ALL_YOUR_BASE

Distinguished
May 5, 2006
34
0
18,530
I wouldn't completely rule out HT yet, you can get a decent P4 HT for right around a hundred bucks but a decent dual core will usually run you over $200.

Yes, dual core is better performance, but it's twice the price for not nearly twice the performance.

If you're on a budget or are thinking about upgrading again in a year or two HT might not be a bad choice.
 
HyperThreading only accelerates some tasks, and even worse, actually slows down others.

Dual-core is always better than hyperthreading. I love AMD, but I've got to admit that Intel has some REALLY GOOD dual-core pricing.