Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do intell dual and quad core processors support hyper threading??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2008 10:18:09 PM

O.K. I dont know alot about computers. but After lots of reading i am thinkling of doing my first build, but when i look online like at new egg all the intell processors say that they do not support hyper threading . The only intell processor that new egg said supported hyper threading was a single core cedar mill i think. Now wheb i look at AMD processors on new egg it says that pretty much all the x2's and phenoms support hyper threading. Whats up with this ? Is the hyperthreading thing just a misprint when it comes to new egg and intell procs supporting multi threading??? First post here so pls be kind to my newbitity! :bounce:  :hello: 
February 19, 2008 10:23:35 PM

intels havent supported HT since the days of P4 HT cpu's, it was the cheats way of making 1 core into 2 cores, however, it was pretty much a failure. Apparently they are bringing HT back with the Nehalem CPU's.

As for AMD i dont know, havent followed there architecture much.
February 19, 2008 10:24:50 PM

Don't worry about hyper threading. What is your budget? Hyper Threading technology was in the old Pentium 4's. You need to get a Core 2 Duo processor. If you tell your budget we could better assist you.

Intel processors are better for gaming from all the research I've done, so don't go for AMD.
Related resources
February 19, 2008 10:28:22 PM

I am lookin to spend no more than $2000 i need everything bran spankin new i will mostly use it for gaming Specifically age of conan. I was thinkin of going ati for graphics like a 3870x2 so if i use intell i would need a x38 mobo. But if i used AMD i could build it much cheaper it seems. Plus i will not be Over clocking since i really now little about it and dont wanna burn up my investment
February 19, 2008 10:28:46 PM

The new gaming rig I just built is with the new Intel E8400, the new 45nm chips. Runs amazingly cool. Runs anygame I throw at it with my e-8800GT 512mb
February 19, 2008 10:32:04 PM

DOH lol that may be
February 19, 2008 10:32:08 PM

The first generation of hyper threading is nearly a failure. Except some of the programs that do take advantage of HT, you generally see decreased performance with HT enabled. This is why companies usually disable HyperThreading in their servers to maintain its performance.

HT, or HyperThreading, was originally created to take advantage of unused portion of the processor at any given time. According to Intel's document, at any given time (this only applies to regular users), CPU utilization rate is about 5~10%. Therefore they developed HyperThreading to take advantage of that unused 90~95% processing power, by "tricking" operating system to think there are two cores instead of one.

However, the early revisions of HyperThreading suffered from massive "cache thrashing", which is when two CPUs fighting for the cache space in the processor. I'm not entirely familiar with the concept, but apparently before the first core is done accessing data from the cache, the second core over-writes the cache with its own data, causing error. Then the cache has to be flushed, and data reloaded. This means wasted processing cycles, and increased processing time.

As for AMD, their HT stands for "HyperTransport", which is an interconnect between CPU and the rest of the computer. This has nothing to do with the "HyperThreading" you mentioned.

Do not purchase a CPU with HT at this time. There are numerous multi-core processors with very affordable prices, and any of them do everything better than a HT enabled Pentium 4/D.
February 19, 2008 10:34:06 PM

i am kinda confused why new egg has the wolfdale for like 230 and the conroe is like 270? i would thinkl it would be opposite?
February 19, 2008 10:36:23 PM

Don't complain. Intel wants to move onto the latest process technology because it saves them dollars on each wafer they put through the fab not to mention they have to utilize each 45nm fab to get those oh so favorable tax right offs.
February 19, 2008 10:39:15 PM

true just need new egg to get some wolfdales in lol i would assume motherboard wise the x38 would be the way to go if i want a 3870x2
February 19, 2008 11:10:04 PM

chookman said:
intels havent supported HT since the days of P4 HT cpu's, it was the cheats way of making 1 core into 2 cores, however, it was pretty much a failure.


If you consider improved interactivity and up to about 30% better performance on multithreaded applications to be 'pretty much a failure', anyway; hopefully no-one was dumb enough to expect things to run twice as fast.
February 19, 2008 11:27:56 PM

MarkG said:
If you consider improved interactivity and up to about 30% better performance on multithreaded applications to be 'pretty much a failure', anyway; hopefully no-one was dumb enough to expect things to run twice as fast.


Or Slower in other cases.
Or Causing Complete System Instability in others. (Even when true Dual CPU Systems are fine.)

February 19, 2008 11:45:03 PM

AMD is suppose to come out with reverse HT so that single threaded apps will work better with multiple cores.
a c 122 à CPUs
February 20, 2008 1:03:50 AM

cah027 said:
AMD is suppose to come out with reverse HT so that single threaded apps will work better with multiple cores.


Only problem I see with that is how can you guarantee no problems? When an app is made for a single thread ripping it into 2 or 4 parts the recombining it could cause problems.

Maybe thats why they decided not to do it yet since they couldn't guarantee that. We will see. Although Nehalem will have a advanced and better version of HT so that might make it better.
February 20, 2008 2:14:43 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Only problem I see with that is how can you guarantee no problems? When an app is made for a single thread ripping it into 2 or 4 parts the recombining it could cause problems.

Maybe thats why they decided not to do it yet since they couldn't guarantee that. We will see. Although Nehalem will have a advanced and better version of HT so that might make it better.


I think AMD had thought about Reverse HT. But they leaked it to the media (Charlie in specific) before their engineering team gave them the "I don't think its going to work" response. All in all, miscommunication between the management team and engineering team may cause the project to fail.

One of the most difficult problem that needs to be solved in Reverse HT is, like you said, how can a program that's written in a single thread be separated into multiple different threads, and re-combine?

What if the program follows a very strict in-order execution, where A-> B, B-> C, C-> D? Then even with RHT, in order to obtain D, C must first be obtained, and so on. Therefore, without A-> B executed, the program simply cannot move on.

In reality, I think RHT is still implemented, but just not in the sense AMD (Charlie) was touting; such as Intel's OoO capability, as well as AMD's. They are both good out of order execution engines (with Intel's being far superior), but it'll take a long while before RHT can actually become a reality.

I'm merely speculating here, so anyone who has extensive knowledge in this area please also contribute to this topic :D .
a c 122 à CPUs
February 20, 2008 2:26:46 AM

yomamafor1 said:
I think AMD had thought about Reverse HT. But they leaked it to the media (Charlie in specific) before their engineering team gave them the "I don't think its going to work" response. All in all, miscommunication between the management team and engineering team may cause the project to fail.

One of the most difficult problem that needs to be solved in Reverse HT is, like you said, how can a program that's written in a single thread be separated into multiple different threads, and re-combine?

What if the program follows a very strict in-order execution, where A-> B, B-> C, C-> D? Then even with RHT, in order to obtain D, C must first be obtained, and so on. Therefore, without A-> B executed, the program simply cannot move on.

In reality, I think RHT is still implemented, but just not in the sense AMD (Charlie) was touting; such as Intel's OoO capability, as well as AMD's. They are both good out of order execution engines (with Intel's being far superior), but it'll take a long while before RHT can actually become a reality.

I'm merely speculating here, so anyone who has extensive knowledge in this area please also contribute to this topic :D .


Agreed. But I think that OoO is for if a thread is waiting to be executed and another with top priority comes behind it it will process the high priority thread first. I might be wrong but I think thats what I read.

I don't think reverse HT will be possible. Since multi threading is the future there will be a time, and maybe soon with nehalem and AMDs next architecture, the single threaded applications will cease to exists. Might be a while away but it will happen. Then RHT will be useless and they will develop a RHT for dual threaded apps to be used on quad/octo cores.

What they need to work on is enhancing the communication between cores to even better heights that way in multi-threaded apps they can increase performance. But I am just a crazy guy what do I know?
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2008 2:30:33 AM

Long story short, no. The last( and the only one I think that did) dual-core CPU that had Hyper Threading was the Pentium EE 965.
a c 122 à CPUs
February 20, 2008 3:02:10 AM

runswindows95 said:
Long story short, no. The last( and the only one I think that did) dual-core CPU that had Hyper Threading was the Pentium EE 965.


Yup!!!
February 20, 2008 3:18:30 AM

The 840 EE, 955 EE and 965 EE all had hyperthreading support.

Hyperthreading will provide notable performance improvement in most media encoding applications, and in the case of P4, decent multitasking performance in a past era dominated by single core CPU systems.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2008 3:43:32 AM

It did make a difference at the time, joefriday.
February 20, 2008 8:20:56 AM

AMD 4 life!!!!!
February 20, 2008 8:47:18 AM

AMD 4 death!!!!!
February 20, 2008 8:41:49 PM

Hmm,
Technically the answer to the OP's question is no, HT is not implemented on any current Core 2 Dual or Quad cores. However, the Silverthorne CPU (part of the UMPC/Menlow architecture) will support HT....

Quote:-
Intel's Hyper-Threading simultaneous multi-threading technology started fading into obscurity when Intel introduced the Pentium D in 2005, and it essentially disappeared from the public eye as the Core 2 Duo followed the year after. Then, last year, Intel announced that Hyper-Threading—or at least some type of comparable SMT implementation—was due for a comeback in its next-gen Nehalem architecture, which is expected to debut in the latter part of this year

From:-
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14060



And in a bigger step... Nahelem will revive HT
Nehalem will also bring back Hyperthreading that was originally introduced with the Pentium 4 series of processors and separated the processor in one physical and one virtual core. With Nehalem, Hyperthreading will be named “simultaneous multi-threading” and offer a maximum of 16 threads (with 8 physical cores).
and
Intel's next major processor architecture, the 45nm 'Nehalem', will see the re-introduction of the chip maker's Hyper-threading simultaneous multi-threading technology, the company confirmed today. Nehalem chips will also feature an integrated memory controller and a graphics core.


From:-
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31408/135/
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2007032...

Regards

BR
a c 122 à CPUs
February 20, 2008 8:46:47 PM

barneyrubble said:
Hmm,
Technically the answer to the OP's question is no, HT is not implemented on any current Core 2 Dual or Quad cores. However, the Silverthorne CPU (part of the UMPC/Menlow architecture) will support HT....

Quote:-
Intel's Hyper-Threading simultaneous multi-threading technology started fading into obscurity when Intel introduced the Pentium D in 2005, and it essentially disappeared from the public eye as the Core 2 Duo followed the year after. Then, last year, Intel announced that Hyper-Threading—or at least some type of comparable SMT implementation—was due for a comeback in its next-gen Nehalem architecture, which is expected to debut in the latter part of this year

From:-
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14060



And in a bigger step... Nahelem will revive HT
Nehalem will also bring back Hyperthreading that was originally introduced with the Pentium 4 series of processors and separated the processor in one physical and one virtual core. With Nehalem, Hyperthreading will be named “simultaneous multi-threading” and offer a maximum of 16 threads (with 8 physical cores).
and
Intel's next major processor architecture, the 45nm 'Nehalem', will see the re-introduction of the chip maker's Hyper-threading simultaneous multi-threading technology, the company confirmed today. Nehalem chips will also feature an integrated memory controller and a graphics core.


From:-
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31408/135/
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2007032...

Regards

BR


Thats great info although those reports fail to state that the new SMT is supposed to be an improved version so it could provide even better performance gains that the original HT did.

Also the Nehalems with the GPUs are said to be in the low end and the IMC will start in the server and trickle down to the high/mid end. Low end will still use the FSB. At least thats the way its being said for now.
!