Thanks for link (even though I read it already
.
Mostly agreeing with what you say, but nevertheless:
>This benchmark is showing a 1000% increase,
No, it doesn't, as throughput isn't increased with a factor 10x. You would have to weigh the lost frames on Farcry (and the lost performance on the other apps) against the increased DivX frames to determine the increase (or who knows, decrease) in overall performance. Since its pretty hard (if not impossible) to do that, you can't make any conclusions at all. There could be a substantial performance increase or decrease, we just don't know, all we know is that performance on other 3 apps was traded for more performance on the DivX app.
Now if they had used 4 identical benchmarks, like 4x DiVX encoding, we could have seen what HT brings for that situation as you could simply add up all the rendered frames in both scenario's. But now you'd have to determine wether eg 100 renderered frames + 10 farcry runs + 50 CD's + something else is more than 500 rendered frames + 5 farcry runs + 25 CD's. Obviously I chose the numbers randomly, but you get the point.
Now somewhere else in this forum I made an attempt to do just that anyhow, by (incorrectly) assuming the 840EE spends an equal ammount of processing time on each benchmark, so each benchmark result is weighed equally. Interestingly, the 840EE and X2 ran neck and neck then (within a few percent or so).
Now I said 'incorrectly' because the DivX encoding runs at a lower thread priority, and FarCry (being the foreground app) at a higher priority; therefore the CPU's should spend more CPU time on Farcry and less on Divx, which means the DivX encoding result represents a smaller part of the overall throughput than the Farcry result. When you factor that in, ironically or not, the X2 outperforms the 840EE. I haven't done this exercise yet with the 840EE sans HT results, but I will later, and post it, but I assume the non HT 840 would perform even (much) worse in this regard.
>The bottom line is that this problem is most likey caused by
> software, not hardware
While I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your conclusion. First, I don't see a "problem" at all. The X2 does exactly what is being asked of it, that is: do not waste CPU cycles on DivX (low priority) instead focus on Farcry (high priority). So its no problem IMO. Secondly, the differing results are indeed a result of deferring hardware+software. If you want to summarize it neverthrless, it would say that HT can (and often/usually does) improve overall throughput, but possibly at the expense of foreground app performance. Neither the advantage nor disadvantage strike me as particulary huge though, its not different than what a differently tweaked OS scheduler could result in...
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =