Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

duel core or hyper threading

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 3, 2005 11:18:31 PM

What is difference between Duel Core vs. Hyper-Threading Technology (HT Technology) ?
and the price need to know!
What going to happen Hyper-Threading?
a b à CPUs
August 3, 2005 11:26:54 PM

well HTT is making the computer think that there is two processors in the computer while there was only 1 physical core and its a really crappy option for games as i think that unless ya turn off HTT your games will run at 50% core effenciency (unless some special games that was optimoized for multi core) and dual core means two seperate, usually equal in processing power cores on one die and thus giving it really dual core, the intel HT is basically a marketing scheme as that it is bad for ppl who actually do multiple things (eg task 1 is game task 2 is encoding then the coputer will think that becasue there are two cores within the computer and each occpuy 1 core and then encoding gets same amount of processing power as the game, which i would say sucks....... because i don;t watch my encoding when i'm boared....) dual core is the way to go when ya do <b>really</b> need it as that a dual core is likely to perform not as good as single cores now because not much software is made for multi cores. and IMO AMD's dual core option is better and cheaper because even if intel's cheapest dual core is cheaper than AMD the damned mobo is expensive as hell and that if ya decide to switch to one core (at higher speed) AMD systems are fully compatable with their current S939 boards (some mobo require a bios flash when using dual core) while intel systems are not.

EDIT: typo pointed out by wusy................................................<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 08/03/05 07:42 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 4, 2005 2:48:49 AM

There are mainly architectual components in the CPU to aid in HT. It isn't just a pure marketing thing to fool noobs. They may exagerate what they do, but I do consider the HT architechture a neat little trick to edge out some extra performance.
Related resources
August 4, 2005 2:52:58 AM

Du<b>a</b>l

_____________________
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
August 4, 2005 2:56:47 AM

I agree with the post below yours.

_____________________
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
August 4, 2005 2:59:52 AM

You bad that Asian ass you can :lol: 

_____________________
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 4:27:23 AM

god not again............. can we use the censoring thing to change duel and dual everytime???
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 4:52:55 AM

lol fine i take what you told me when i first got here, bio threading!
August 4, 2005 5:49:42 AM

Har har - Then I choose Integrated Memory Controller! Har Har, har har [/crazy Jap animation talk]

_____________________
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
August 4, 2005 6:51:10 AM

Alright, TheHolyLancer is a moron, same with the others that agreed, most never even used HT. HT actually is quite effective, boot times are less, running two heavy intensive multi threading task are possible with relativly less lag in system response. Basicly HT is the poor mans dual core. Dual cores do better at multitasking as figured, but a HT enabled P4 core easily beats any matching AMD when mutlitasking. You loose alittle performance in single threaded applications like games, but not much, and in return you get a more responsive OS that only dual core p4's and dual core AMD's (and other dual cores) can match. generally if you use a p4 HT enabled system long enough and then play around on XP with an AMD thats not dual core, most can notice a significant lag in the AMD system when it comes to response time, and when the CPU is under heavy load.

Btw, contrary to the above nut, your CPU does not peak at 50% (task manager says so, but your system is running at full potential, when I disable HT, and task manager is saying 100%, I generally only get maybe 1-2, if any FPS on games.)
August 4, 2005 7:58:13 AM

Mostly agreed with keman. There is indeed not much wrong with HT, and it can give some nice performance increases though its no match for dual core. under some circumstances it can reduce performance, but those are exceptions, and most certainly not 50% drops in things like games as reported above. OF course some idiots will look at taskmanager, see only one active thread and therefore a reported 50% load to conclude performance is cut in half. I wonder if those people would think the same looking at taskmanager on a dual core machine :/ 

The biggest advantage of HT is the fact it still has a virtual core when one thread monopolizes the cpu, so you get a snapier system. Once you move to multicores, this advantage becomes questionable, and the same word applies to its future as I hear conflicting reports about future intel chips and their support for HT. Personally, I think its dead, as Merom/Conroe will be PM/K8 style braniac designs that leave much less potential for HT than on the speedracer design of P4. Ironically, AMD is rumoured to be working on a speedracer design, and might just implement something like it, much like IBM has on their Power5.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 4, 2005 1:27:01 PM

The problem with HT is that it's marketed on pure hype, without the technical detail to go along with it. Which you can't really blame, as you don't gain a true appreciation for what it does and involves without having a reasonable level of knowledge about CPU architechture and OS programming / multi-threaded programming (i.e. What the hell a context-switch is). Without all that knowledge, all you see is a few benchmarks and a performance hit in some areas and a gain in others, and only half-explinations as to why that occurs.

As I said before, HT is a neat piece of CPU engineering that truely does help eliminate idle cycles. But without a good background knowledge, you don't really know whether it's right for you or not.
August 4, 2005 2:01:13 PM

Quote:
But without a good background knowledge, you don't really know whether it's right for you or not.

I would disagree there. Virtually everyone who uses a windows PC would derive some benifit at some point - Whether it's being able to do other stuff while it's encoding some video, or even just being able to play some games or browse the 'net while a Virus scan is running... That sort of thing.

Or if you're me, being able to compile 2 Delphi projects at once and still surf the net acceptably.. :evil: 

---
<font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 2:16:25 PM

I agree with CHipdeath, everyone is multitasking to a certain extend! Especially as he pointed with Virus scan, now you got spyware scan/live detection,firewall all that...THats not even considering the overhead integrated sound card/lan etc.

In the end, you will have a smoother experience with HT. You should disable it if you have software issues and I heard software like folding@home does perform better without it...

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
August 4, 2005 2:43:18 PM

Some people suggest F@H actually performs <i>better</i> with HT, providing you run 2 separate instances (one for each 'virtual' CPU)..

There <i>is</i> software that is incompatible with HT to some extent though.. Interbase 6.0 OpenSource takes a stupidly long time to connect to databases with HT on, for some reason... I also remember someone having a thread around here a while ago who had some drivers for some modem or something that were incompatible too.

These cases are pretty rare though.

---
<font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 3:08:08 PM

someone posted a link to a forum where on of the actual programmer(maybe just working there no quite sure) talked about the HT issue.
From what I rember a single instance of F@H will be faster without HT, 2 instance will give you more points but will not "benefit" F@H that much. The reason is that the WU's will take more time to process and they will be waiting for them. So they say if you go for points, its ok all contributions are welcome, if you care about F@H purpose/goal dont run 2 instance on HT...

That was rather long and you probably knew it...but typed it anyway =)

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
August 4, 2005 3:16:59 PM

Well that may be true, but I'm hardly going to turn off HT on my work PC, just so F@H is happier, am I? That would probably have a very negative effect on what little actual <i>work</i> I produce.... :evil: 

---
<font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 08/04/05 04:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 3:50:15 PM

heheh ditto

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 4:44:45 PM

lol even if HT is effective (in terms of non HT and a HTed intel processor) it is not good for someone who need their pirorities straight as that programs not only like games are cpu aggressive and with HT even if ya put the required task on "realtime" it would still be fighting processing power with something with a rating of "low" now that is nice eh? still een with the4 mentioned about firewall and virus scan, a windows takes look at the single core and if there are no other active programs that require the cpu usage and give it the full processing power it needs, now if there was another active program that was rather aggressive and have a higher processing level then it will simply not give the scans and firewalls as many processing power and thus makws them slower and the important task faster, now if the tasks were divided on two real processors (cores or multi processor) it would benefit as that no task is being hindered by another task and it is good, however, with HT it is making a less important task hindering a important taks, is that good? I do have to admit that i was a little too untureful about the 50% reduce in processing power for an app but, there is still noticeable drop in performance for the important task when there is another few unimportant task are running. Becides my attitude also come from the intel's marketing scheme, just throwing out a name to fool the pubilic (even though it migh be good) and making ppl buy their product on marketing, not the quality of their product.



and i'd agree with P4man about hte future of HT, as the computer world move to more cores HT would be useless and that i wonder what next marketing scheme will intel use? or will they reconsider what they are doing and actually putting out a quality product?

then again i have to admit if single core A64s gets HT and it can be turned off in windows i will be happy as that i don;t game all the time ya know. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 08/04/05 12:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 5:45:15 PM

I do find it amusing. You talk about important task that will run slower. I really have to ask what task is so *important* that you really cant afford to have it take a few seconds(if not mili-seconds) more. Where talking about desktop here, even in workstation, I dont see many time where this notion of *important must run as fast as it can* applies. And if its the case, a simple reboot and HT off will do the trick.

Also the threads are not litteraly fighting for processing power look <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021202/hyperthreading..." target="_new">here</A>, you'll see what I mean. As you can see, the task are fighting more whit HT off. I know this is not an exact representation of what is actually going on but its still a good general impression.

I see HT as added value. I'd much rather have my IMPORTANT thread take a few more seconds but I can actually do something else. If you look at the final result HT does make a lot of sens. Just dont expect 50% performance increase.Usually, people bitching about HT are the people who neevr used it. For me , its not about performance or about numbers, its about feeling/responsivness.

What you are saying is paratially true, but is only technical and we all know the theory is'nt real life. As long as you havent used a HT system in day to day task, you're opinion will be massively biased. Also remember that Intel is not always = to bad. People support AMD in these forum but try to stay objective!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 6:59:08 PM

lol well somtimes in fps the drop in performance (escipically in multi player) is very noticeable..... although noprmal apps won;t be too damaged but games are effected the most, and i goto get my dad to upp his IMB intel machine to a HT one so i can, like you said, try it out, i wil under clock my 3200 venice to a equevwlent speed of the intel rig (after all its a 3 year old IBM intel rig, or if i'm lucky enough he will let me build one for him, and he don;t really need upgradeablility lol) maybe then i will have more say but now since gaming is still big part of my computering use (will be less in the future when i get into programming but it will never be too small) i still think HT is bad
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 7:05:14 PM

two words:

Disable Off...



Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 7:21:35 PM

And another comment, say thx to HT, it helped too smooth out the transition form DuEl core. Its been around 2 years, it started to make the developpers think multithread...intel big $$$ helped too!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 7:55:36 PM

well i guess that is ture, but only now developers are seriousely thinking and making about dual core everyday apps thouh
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 7:58:22 PM

well that would be in a whle if it wasnt of HT
and 64 would be in a while if it wasnt of the A64...

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
August 4, 2005 8:12:12 PM

I don't know about 64... I still find it particularily suspicious that XP x64 was released with such close timing to Intel's EMT64 processors...
August 4, 2005 8:50:59 PM

thats cuz intel controlls so much of the market, even though AMD skeets all over Intel in this round, the Intel franchise saved its butt. i mean, they have the resources and enough dumb ppl to buy their products. so windows have to comply with this zombie like scheme and go with the intel release on their pathetic take on 64 bit processing

<font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>
August 5, 2005 10:51:32 AM

"lol well somtimes in fps the drop in performance (escipically in multi player) is very noticeable..... although noprmal apps won;t be too damaged but games are effected the most, and i goto get my dad to upp his IMB intel machine to a HT one so i can, like you said, try it out, i wil under clock my 3200 venice to a equevwlent speed of the intel rig (after all its a 3 year old IBM intel rig, or if i'm lucky enough he will let me build one for him, and he don;t really need upgradeablility lol) maybe then i will have more say but now since gaming is still big part of my computering use (will be less in the future when i get into programming but it will never be too small) i still think HT is bad"

First, freaking talk like a normal human being, I can barely understand what your saying in all that giberish. Second, you have absolutly no idea what your talking about, Disabling HT at most gets you 4-6FPS, now, unless your really treading the lines of a low end GPU, generally that has no impact whatsoever, Im sure 80FPS will really improve my BF2 experience rather than my HORRIBLY HT LAGGED 75FPS... Actually use a real HT enabled intel for a few days and actually try things out before you spit out so much biased crap.
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 1:06:46 PM

obviously i'm talking a machine that is on multiplayer and have lots and lots of ppl in one same instance (and the host has got a great server that is... or lanparty styled thing) not like your normal 4 person sparing. geeze not everyone have english as their first language ya know, maybe this is y americans are a lot less tolerant of different cultures than canadians, or at least a example of it.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 08/05/05 09:07 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 3:26:42 PM

Yeah most of the time, unless you have a ubber fast card, games are GPU limited anyhow.
And then when you do have a ubber fast card, a drop to 65 instead of 70 is no biggy. If for some reason you alt+tab out of the fgame(playing single palyer whatever) you can do something much faster, also if you didnt turn down your AV or whatever that'll be smoother on both apps!

Point is HT did some good thing for Intel and you cant deny it, if you dont like it, disable it!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 4:32:26 PM

lol i don't deny that HT did do some good things but i do not like the way intel is treating it (marketing it) and saying that its like the future of all things (that is until now) that it is the god of cpu feature

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 08/05/05 12:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 6:03:34 PM

Hehe thats better!
The tech is goof at what it does. Its not miraculous, its not like its revolution, its much more an evolution that served the netburst, and long pipelined cpu, in general.

You better get use too it. Its marketing for the masse! Every new tech is the best thing since sliced bread! And between me and you, we cant say that dual core are the most amazing technology we saw.

You didnt make any comments, yet Intel is marketing dual core mouch more than it did market HT. Yet you dont whine about it, is it only because AMD is offering similar tech?

You where talking about HT removing a few frames per seconds, well you can disable it. With a dual core, you will get also get less fps(true for equally priced intel parts, true for highend AMD parts). Yet you agree that DC is the way to go for the future...

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 7:14:04 PM

well dual core optimized software i belieive will run faster on read dual physical core machines, i mean think of DC as two person carry a aplitted weight so each carry less and each could go faster or carry more, while if this was used on HT machine its like giving the two load to two person while the two person is one the same (ummm well as best as i can put it...) so still only 1 person is doing the job.. maybe with the longer piplines this is good but i would say that a real DC would be the future IF the software segament really uses that much cpu power (eventually it will i believe) so for now its all the same, until software becomes more demanding with hardware, nothing will be changed (or at least sooooo little that you don;t notice it, i mean acheiving 130 fps is indiffernt than 80 fps to our eyes i think, unless ya count in the upgradeability part then...... amd would win because every upgrade do not require a new mobo, while with intel with the mobo ya have you can only go certain speeds....) until that day i guess nothing is gona be different and marketing scheme is the only thing that matters to the public, not the best bang for buck, not the best performance, only flashy wrappers.....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 7:32:28 PM

Well you are right my point was simply that HT serves a purpose, it does what its suppose to do really well! Dual is obviously a better way to multitask, but modern processor can do it rather well. Once again Dual core is more evolutionnary than revolutionnary!

As for the upgrade that is not perfectly valid. Amd did change platform albeit a little less often than Intel but changing platform si simply require to keep up with innovation. Amd will introdue M2 socket and a whole new platform in a bit more than 1 year...And socket A-->754-->939 now -->M2 was a rather fast transition...

Oh and flashy wrapper is tha shhhhhiiiittt!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
!