Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hyperthreading AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 23, 2006 6:06:09 AM

Do AMD CPU's ie. Athlon64 3200+ Venice support hyperthreading?

If it does'nt, does it make much of a performance difference when playing games when the above CPU is compared to a P4 630 3ghz intel CPU with hyperthreading activated?

Thanks,

More about : hyperthreading amd

July 23, 2006 6:39:07 AM

Quote:
Hyperthreading is unique to Intel CPUs.


And typically offers little (if any) performance increase, while sometimes causing a performance decrease.

EDIT: AMD chips (until the Core 2) are much better at gaming applications than Intel, but either of the chips you mentioned will do perfectly fine as long as you have a decent video card.
July 23, 2006 7:24:24 AM

Well it rarely causes a performace decrease. It helps out a little bit with multitasking but in my experience lots of RAM makes an even bigger difference.
Related resources
July 23, 2006 7:34:11 AM

Quote:
Hyperthreading is unique to Intel CPUs.


Doesnt IBM have some multithreaded CPU's? Sun as well with the T1. I guess Intel makes the only consumer multithreaded cpu though...
July 23, 2006 7:35:47 AM

For strictly gaming, if you are only choosing between the two processors you mentioned, I'd say go with the AMD. For general purpose computing that INCLUDES gaming, I'd say get the Pentium. In my personal experience, the Pentium seems much more responsive within a general Windows Environment, perhaps because of hyperthreading (though not necessarily), and I am much happier with my current (P4) build than my last three AMD builds.
July 23, 2006 8:05:19 AM

If you are building a new system on a low budget, stretch to an E6300 or x2 3800, you won't be sorry that you did.

Oh yeah, hyperthreading was a bit of a lame duck, trying to almost fake dual core a little until it was ready.
July 23, 2006 12:27:14 PM

AsRock has a $85 Conroe motherboard... and then there is the $186 C2D CPU...
July 23, 2006 5:24:20 PM

Quote:
Hyperthreading is unique to Intel CPUs.


Thank the Lord for that.

I would blame AMD for the rest of my life if they copied Intel's nasty hack, becasue HyperThreading is just that, a nasty hack to hide a processor flaw that keeps the processor from being iddle all the time.

Intel's way of "processor architecture". :wink:
July 23, 2006 6:34:38 PM

Quote:
I would blame AMD for the rest of my life if they copied Intel's nasty hack, becasue HyperThreading is just that, a nasty hack to hide a processor flaw that keeps the processor from being iddle all the time.

Intel's way of "processor architecture". :wink:


Why would you say that? (exit2dos asks as if expecting 9-inch to stick around to answer. :p  )

Hyperthreading (and Netburst, by the way) works great with some applications. Especially media and video encoding. Programs written to take advantage of Intel CPUs can really scream past AMD. I think that the problem with Netburst was that Intel expected that everybody would optomize their software for it. Didn't happen. :roll:

Anyway,

fredgiblet wrote:
Quote:
AMD chips (until the Core 2) are much better at gaming applications than Intel, but either of the chips you mentioned will do perfectly fine as long as you have a decent video card.


I agree.
July 23, 2006 7:08:53 PM

hey Guys,
This might help. I copied this text from the AMD Dual core site that has a diagram and discription of what the cores do and how they operate. I am sure AMD is NOT "copying" Intel's architecture. It just operates a little different. Here..... check it out. Intel calls it "HyperThreading" and AMD calls it "HyperTransport"

HyperTransport™ technology for high speed I/O communication
One 16-bit link up to 2000MHz
Up to 8GB/s HyperTransport™ I/O bandwidth
Up to 14.4GB/s (socket 939) or 20.8GB/s (socket AM2) total delivered processor-to-system bandwidth (HyperTransport bus + memory bus)


I got the Athlon 64X2 4800+ and I am thoroughly happy with it.

RIG specs
Antec P180 PerformanceSeries Mid-Tower Case
SeaSonic S12 600 watt power supply
Asus A8N32 SLI mobo AMD N-Force 4 SLIX16 (bios 1103 V02.58)
RealTek 97 onboard digital 5.1 Surround
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo Core, 2 X 1mb L2 cache (AMD drivers w/MS hotfix)
2 gigs of Corsair TwinX3500LL Pro @ 437Mhz 2-3-2-6-1T
2- BFG Tech 7900 GT OC 256mb in SLI (nvidia driver 91.31)
Western Digital RAPTOR 74.3 gig 10-K rpm HDD for XP & Apps
Maxtor SATA II 250 G HDD for gaming, movies, MP3's
Maxtor SATA II 250 G HDD for document backup (unplugged)
Sony CD rom 52X
Plextor 708-A DVD/CD rom
Logitech Z-5500 digital 5.1 THX Surround 500watts
July 23, 2006 7:28:26 PM

Hyperthreading is more of a way to get dual-core functioning out of a single core. The chip will use idle resources for another process, but it doesn't work if both tasks need the same resources.

Hypertransport is an external link.

If the choice is between multicore or hyperthreading - Multicore is the way to go.
July 23, 2006 10:29:47 PM

Quote:
hey Guys,
This might help. I copied this text from the AMD Dual core site that has a diagram and discription of what the cores do and how they operate. I am sure AMD is NOT "copying" Intel's architecture. It just operates a little different. Here..... check it out. Intel calls it "HyperThreading" and AMD calls it "HyperTransport"

HyperTransport™ technology for high speed I/O communication
One 16-bit link up to 2000MHz
Up to 8GB/s HyperTransport™ I/O bandwidth
Up to 14.4GB/s (socket 939) or 20.8GB/s (socket AM2) total delivered processor-to-system bandwidth (HyperTransport bus + memory bus)


I got the Athlon 64X2 4800+ and I am thoroughly happy with it.

RIG specs
Antec P180 PerformanceSeries Mid-Tower Case
SeaSonic S12 600 watt power supply
Asus A8N32 SLI mobo AMD N-Force 4 SLIX16 (bios 1103 V02.58)
RealTek 97 onboard digital 5.1 Surround
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo Core, 2 X 1mb L2 cache (AMD drivers w/MS hotfix)
2 gigs of Corsair TwinX3500LL Pro @ 437Mhz 2-3-2-6-1T
2- BFG Tech 7900 GT OC 256mb in SLI (nvidia driver 91.31)
Western Digital RAPTOR 74.3 gig 10-K rpm HDD for XP & Apps
Maxtor SATA II 250 G HDD for gaming, movies, MP3's
Maxtor SATA II 250 G HDD for document backup (unplugged)
Sony CD rom 52X
Plextor 708-A DVD/CD rom
Logitech Z-5500 digital 5.1 THX Surround 500watts


Congrats with your new purchase. Hope you enjoy that rig to the max. :wink:
July 23, 2006 10:39:01 PM

Quote:
Why would you say that? (exit2dos asks as if expecting 9-inch to stick around to answer. Razz )

Hyperthreading (and Netburst, by the way) works great with some applications. Especially media and video encoding. Programs written to take advantage of Intel CPUs can really scream past AMD. I think that the problem with Netburst was that Intel expected that everybody would optomize their software for it. Didn't happen. Rolling Eyes


The same case you can see with AMD if the apps are correctly written to take advantages of the processor features (specially 64-bit), but I guess you didn't know about the "intel compiler fiasco" which handicapped K8 processors from executing SSE code (intel's way of being competitive). 8)

Anyhow, if hyperthreading was so great, why in the world intel didn't include it in conrunt?

As I said before, hyperthreading was, is and always will be a nasty hack and many processor architects will back up this.

The way to go with multithreading is DSMT which "some say" will be included in AMD's next-gen K10 architecture and is currently a feature of Sun's 8-core T1 processor.
July 23, 2006 10:52:35 PM

Quote:
The same case you can see with AMD if the apps are correctly written to take advantages of the processor features (specially 64-bit), but I guess you didn't know about the "intel compiler fiasco" which handicapped K8 processors from executing SSE code (intel's way of being competitive). 8)


Everyone's performance would be better if it was written for a specific CPU design.

Quote:
Anyhow, if hyperthreading was so great, why in the world intel didn't include it in conrunt?


If you could bring yourself to say Conroe or Core 2 Duo, at least n00bs would partially understand what you have to say. More experienced forum members would however still maintain their same opinion.

Quote:
As I said before, hyperthreading was, is and always will be a nasty hack and many processor architects will back up this.


Please quote the many. Also, please then quote the remainder so we can determine at least if not who is correct, who is in the majority.

Quote:
The way to go with multithreading is DSMT which "some say" will be included in AMD's next-gen K10 architecture and is currently a feature of Sun's 8-core T1 processor.


Is K10 arriving in H2 2006 like the rest of the roadmap?



Seriosuly, the above might be a bit of fun, but this is just becoming more and more of a trend here from certain posters.

A fact is posted, a little debate is allowed to happen before everything is derailed by a load of propaganda nonsense, with no substantiation and a spiteful schoolkid attitude.

We'd be better off having a seperate CPU Fanboy forum where all this rubbish can be spouted 24/7 in ignorant bliss and this place could get back to something sensible. It all detracts from the great reviews THG puts up, and a bad name spreads quickly across the net.
July 24, 2006 12:02:22 AM

Quote:
Anyhow, if hyperthreading was so great, why in the world intel didn't include it in conrunt?


Hyperthreading was to appear in future EE Conroes, but with quadcore being pushed up, I doubt it will appear. Why simulate an extra core when you can have an extra core?
July 24, 2006 12:34:13 AM

Quote:
Would that not be interesting if HT made into kentsfield, quad core w/ 8 thread CPU.... with the 4 issue cores, and the extra decoding power many have commented that the Core 2 architecture would make for a better HT processor over netburst.

Jack


Just pondering this makes my head spin. I mean with HT, your biggest problem was doing two similar tasks concurrently, but with 4 cores, the chances of a "hyperthread" needing the same resources as a physical core drop, so it would be possible to have 8-way threading. 8O
Wow, my face is getting all twitchy on the left side. :p 
July 24, 2006 2:13:04 AM

Quote:
Why would you say that? (exit2dos asks as if expecting 9-inch to stick around to answer. Razz )

Hyperthreading (and Netburst, by the way) works great with some applications. Especially media and video encoding. Programs written to take advantage of Intel CPUs can really scream past AMD. I think that the problem with Netburst was that Intel expected that everybody would optomize their software for it. Didn't happen. Rolling Eyes


The same case you can see with AMD if the apps are correctly written to take advantages of the processor features (specially 64-bit), but I guess you didn't know about the "intel compiler fiasco" which handicapped K8 processors from executing SSE code (intel's way of being competitive). 8)

Anyhow, if hyperthreading was so great, why in the world intel didn't include it in conrunt?

As I said before, hyperthreading was, is and always will be a nasty hack and many processor architects will back up this.

The way to go with multithreading is DSMT which "some say" will be included in AMD's next-gen K10 architecture and is currently a feature of Sun's 8-core T1 processor.

yes i would listen to 9nm, he does have his doctine in mis information as you all know
July 24, 2006 5:02:31 AM

Quote:
Would that not be interesting if HT made into kentsfield, quad core w/ 8 thread CPU.... with the 4 issue cores, and the extra decoding power many have commented that the Core 2 architecture would make for a better HT processor over netburst.

Jack


Just pondering this makes my head spin. I mean with HT, your biggest problem was doing two similar tasks concurrently, but with 4 cores, the chances of a "hyperthread" needing the same resources as a physical core drop, so it would be possible to have 8-way threading. 8O
Wow, my face is getting all twitchy on the left side. :p 

I don't think it would happen, just imagining booting up with 8 cores in the task manager. ;)  That would be fun to see. We will need to wait for K8L quad on 4x4 to see that on DT I suppose.

It's been strongly hinted that it's in there. I cant see it being useful in a QC chips though because just like in case of the 840EE there would be too many thread's for the FSB to handle without actually slowing things down.
July 24, 2006 1:23:17 PM

I wouldnt be at all surprised to see Hyperthreading return to intel's future chips. Running multiple threads through one core in 'hardware' is no more stress on the FSB than windows thread manager trying to do it in software.

A 'standard' install of Windows Vista, is pushing over 200 threads just sitting at the desktop, so multicore+multithreading is just what the doctor ordered.

Hyperthreading helps by allowing two threads access to the cpu at once. It works because there are sometimes 'unused' ports on the CPU due to software not needing, or not taking advantage of the full potential of the CPU. On Pentium 4 (A 3 issue core), this typically gave a 25% boost. On a 4 issue core like Conroe, there is greater potential for the processor to have a spare port or 2, for processing a second thread.

Sun already have a processor that can handle up to 32 threads at once, using 8 cores with 4 threads per core. Intel's 2 thread 'hyperthreading' is simple in comparison with that.

There are already people who have '8' core's running in windows, and im pretty sure that one of the Xeon's allows dual processor, + dual core + hyperthreading for an 8 core presentation to windows.
!