"Reverse Hyperthreading does not exist"

incinerator

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2004
68
0
18,630
I read the article this morning and I was debating whether or not to post it. Looks like you beat me to the punch. They don't mention where they got this confirmation from, but that's the Inquirer. Personally at this time I don't believe it exists. In the future it may be possible, but that probably will occure (if it does) after the K8L (IMO). We shall see....

-][nCiNeRaToR-
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32885

Of course, coming from The Inquirer, the official organ of the AMD Party, I don't know whether this is true or just a smokescreen.
Doubt if 9-Inch would have posted this, even though he worships the Inq. :wink:
 

MrsD

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2006
480
0
18,780
Didnt we also read a few years back an article that stated it was impossible to engineer an on die memory controller? :roll:
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32885

Of course, coming from The Inquirer, the official organ of the AMD Party, I don't know whether this is true or just a smokescreen.

Sure it was false, it was against every logic that a company released a product with a hidden feature 8O :wink:
 

Ycon

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
1,359
0
19,280
Well, that doesnt change the situation... even if AMD really had developed such a technology, it would be a clear failure.
So AMD continues to face Conroe unarmed.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
wo when do we believe the INQ when they list no source

or is it an agenda thing

only believe the INQ then they back your agenda?
That is what I was wondering exactly, when they were BSing about RHT. I wonder why AMD fanboys take everything(rumors, lies, BS, FUD) that speaks good about AMD as fact and everything else ignore.
 

MrsD

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2006
480
0
18,780
Well, that doesnt change the situation... even if AMD really had developed such a technology, it would be a clear failure.
So AMD continues to face Conroe unarmed.

As if P4 hasnt faced A64 unarmed for the last few years. :roll:
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
I think he is referring to "fanboys" ( I hate that word) of both sides. Intel and AMD alike, the Intel fanboys automatically disregard everything the Inquirer says good about AMD, while AMD "Fanboys" tout it.... and vice versa.
 

Mike995

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
419
0
18,780
Intel core multiplexing does exist right now, and is possible with a simple bios update on the 975X chipset. Amd just copied Intel, as they are much farther behind on this "reverse hyperthreading" concept then Intel is. All core 2's currently support core multiplexing.
 

theaxemaster

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2006
375
0
18,780
Intel core multiplexing does exist right now, and is possible with a simple bios update on the 975X chipset. Amd just copied Intel, as they are much farther behind on this "reverse hyperthreading" concept then Intel is. All core 2's currently support core multiplexing.

proof?
 

RichPLS

Champion
currently on 975 mobo's they have a BIOS option called Multi-plexing and the options are enabled/disabled...

I am sure some sites have investigated performances pros/cons
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
There is no Messiah for AMD, There's no second coming of K8_Christ and his 12GB/s Hypertransport Apostles.

Fanboys on either side need to understand something. It has been tradition in EVERY respective PC market for two main competitors to each have there time in the limelight. Each competitor works to outdo the other.

Here's a brief history of the past few architectures.

K6-2
PIII
Athlon (K7)
P4 Willamette
Athlon XP
P4 Northwood "C"
Athlon64 (K8)
Core Duo 2

Each are successive product launches that significantly defeated the others product.
Fanboys will claim on either side that there preffered company has never lost the performance crown. Especially AMD Fanboys who still, to this day, believe the AthlonXP to be better then the Pentium 4C (which is untrue).

Core Duo 2 will reign supreme for some time. It's too bloody efficient for AMD to counter without one of these two:

a) revamped architecture (K8L)
b) higher clock speed

Too bad for AMD that the K8's architecture doesn't clock all too well (due to Intel's better FAB's and process technology).

So the King is Dead (K8) Long Live the King (Core Duo 2). By 2008, AMD will most likely re-claim the throne..

As for Reverse Hyperthreading, my gut instinct tells me Intel will be the first to release a product supporting Reverse Hyperthreading.
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
Forget about proof I want benchmarks.... on vs off..... if it is already available, then the reveiw sites should be able to use it on the Conroe samples they have.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
Intel core multiplexing does exist right now, and is possible with a simple bios update on the 975X chipset. Amd just copied Intel, as they are much farther behind on this "reverse hyperthreading" concept then Intel is. All core 2's currently support core multiplexing.
Dude, Core Multiplexing has nothing with "RHT" concept, nor it has with speculative threading. It is just a technology that will make the whole L2 cache available to only one core when running single threaded apps. Look at the picture and you'll figure out that easy:
000000041530.png