Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HyperThreading for Intel Pentium 4 Processors?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 24, 2002 2:48:55 PM

I feel the most important part about Intel's Pentium 4 processor is HyperThreading.

How will it affect personal computing and the processor market share in the future?

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 24, 2002 7:27:26 PM

First, if apps are not ready for it, they suffer more or equal.
Second, it has been tested, although currently we see about 20-30% boost from a virtual CPU. It may get better later!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 24, 2002 9:06:22 PM

I understood the same way.
That without optimization (whatever that means) HyperThreading-enabled Pentium 4 will be slower than HyperThreading-disable Pentium 4.
I don't know how many applications are being rewritten for HT. Since Intel will even release HT-enabled P4 for desktops, does it mean the gap between PC and server will become narrower?

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
Related resources
March 24, 2002 9:15:24 PM

dont forget to add microshaft into the equation, hyperthreading basically = multiple processors to winblows, and they want more money becauze of it apparently.

The way my life is going if i expect nothing i
will still end up being dissapointed. :frown:
March 24, 2002 9:28:50 PM

Hm. It's the same with dual non-HyperThreading P4 and P3 and dual Athlon MP. Thanks to HyperThreading, maybe the Professional versions will double the number of supported CPUs and also the Home versions will support dual CPUs. BTW, the cheapest i860 boards will cost more than HyperThreading-enabled P4 in a few months.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 12:24:39 AM

I would have to ask you to refrain from commenting on Microsoft in that manner. That’s highly disrespectful and slanderous. I in fact take personal offence to your statement since I am a happy Microsoft Windows user. This is a perfect example of why THG has such a poor rep vs. other forums. Keep your opinions outside the forum please. You don’t like their products you are welcome to use another competitors, and yes there is competitors so don’t feed me that bull.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
March 25, 2002 12:42:05 AM

we all own windows , some of us like it , some dont.

i personally used 95/98/ME without much interest and inner satisfaction . But when i used 2000 and now xp , i realize how important these two are, they work there programs in separate memory spaces thus avoiding crashes.

personally i hold 2 MCPs now ( 1 for win2k pro and the other for win2k active directory ) and im going for my third now ( win2k server ) , so i have to like windows , not that i dont like it in the first place though :) 

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith - Holmes
March 25, 2002 12:44:26 AM

yes it probably is, and by the looks of it yes you have.
however, ill remind you that what anyone says here is "IMO", and last time i checked it wasn't illegal to hold opinions.

and as u said, if i, or you, dont like something, one can allways go elsewhere.
or just ignore me.

Morally destitute, Emotionally bankrupt but a proud and respected member of Toms Forums! :smile:
March 25, 2002 12:58:57 AM

There are other forums in worse fashion. M$ instead of MS, for example. I don't understand exactly why some people do that.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 1:04:13 AM

I would have to say that a majority of users don't like microsoft licencing schemes. They are always looking for ways to make users make unnecessary upgrades. Most of the issues are prolly more related to business, but it carries over to the home sector too. Go look at their licensing. I think it is ubsurd. And i think the majority of users would agree with me.
March 25, 2002 1:11:07 AM

Hm. 95/98/ME were for Win 3.1 users. 2000/XP were for both Win 3.1 and NT users. I used both DOS + Win 3.1 and NT so I moved to 95 and 98 and ME... and 2000 and XP... Windows XP is the best operating system I've used so far.
Since 95/98/ME were never intended for servers and networking but to seduce the DOS users into the world of NT, I think it is better to compare DOS with Win ME and NT with 2000/NT than to compare 95/98/ME with 2000/XP.

BTW, I'm disappointed to hear Microsoft will release Windows XP Second Edition very late and also the next version of XP will come out months later.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 1:23:13 AM

1. Are the upgrades really unnecessary for users? I always feel the upgrades should accelerate and increase. Maybe some upgrades are not always helpful and necessary for some users. Not all.

2. Is licensing obligatory? I thought it as an option.

3. Very many people would agree with you. But also many others would not.

4. To like or hate a product or a company is one thing. It's another to call it M$ or microshaft. Well, I don't like people who call me can instead of Ken.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 1:26:06 AM

I rather have Mirosoft release it late then have a Problem like intel had with the p3 1.13 chip. We pay to much for a OS. To have some thing wrong with it.
March 25, 2002 1:39:46 AM

Hm. Of course, everyone should have a right to stay. But I am tired of the current version of Windows.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 2:46:07 AM

Then get Linux. You can set it up the way you want it. IT runs great. And it free.

As for the upgrades it more to fix bugs they left in the frist time.
March 25, 2002 5:23:04 AM

Well, Linux and Unix are not easy-to-use. Before using that OS, Users should learn some commands. Whereas, Windows is more user-frendly OS than those, I think. Before using Windows, users need to learn just the way to use mouse like 'Duble-Clicking' ' Dragging'. Of course, Linux and Unix are good OS, too. I heard from many computer programmers that Unix is really good OS for them. But not for computer beginners. :) 


from ipc002.
March 25, 2002 9:25:42 AM

well yes before 2000 and NT were not for home use, but with XP home version microsoft is retiring DOS for good and proting home use to the NT kernel.

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith - Holmes
March 25, 2002 9:43:15 AM

Yep. That's why I said it was a seduction for DOS users into NT world. Microsoft always wanted it but the process took too many years.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 10:19:04 AM

UNIX whether it's from Sun or HP never was developed and provided as cheaply and easily for the people.
Linux will just disappear as a real competition like Netscape in a few years. That has been usually why I never responded to anyone who said Linux is so good and a good alternative to Windows. It never had much chance and never will.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
March 25, 2002 12:11:48 PM

Linux will be around for quite awhile. There are enough people that are fed up with Microsoft, that it is pretty much a given.
March 25, 2002 12:24:59 PM

Quote:
Well, Linux and Unix are not easy-to-use. Before using that OS, Users should learn some commands. Whereas, Windows is more user-frendly OS than those, I think. Before using Windows, users need to learn just the way to use mouse like 'Duble-Clicking' ' Dragging'. Of course, Linux and Unix are good OS, too. I heard from many computer programmers that Unix is really good OS for them. But not for computer beginners. :) 


Not so.

Windows is ONLY easier for 2 or 3 reasons

It comes preinstalled

Installing new programs is almost as simple as just inserting the disk

Linux is just as easy to use as Windows once it's installed. The GUI is quite similar to Windows or Mac.

Even installation is quite easy...infact, I find it about as easy to install Linux as to install Windows on a computer.

The disadvantage Linux now has is it has a plethora of variants and a lot of programs are variant specific. So, you can't easily insert a disk and know it will install into your Linux variant.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 25, 2002 3:34:15 PM

When's the last time you paid extra for multiple CPUs in Windows? That's only for large systems, and I would think Microsoft would change that before HyperThreading is common.

What he's referring to is that Windows thinks a CPU with HT enabled is basically 4, meaning that Windows versions that are licensed by the number of CPUs would suddenly cost more money.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
March 31, 2002 12:23:06 PM

Geez, what hearsay: Linux is superior to Windows in any aspect, except perhaps for ease with web-surfing and installation of new plug-ins. Windows cost money; is AOL-like, is impenetrable and hangs upon execution. Ever heard about nice-levels? Defending Windows is a sure sign of a person who chats, surfs and emails, and that's about it.
March 31, 2002 5:19:19 PM

Defending Windows is a sign you use WinXP or a very very stable system. I am the former, and think WinXP is the best thing MS has ever given us. No crashes at all, bye bye blue screens and constant support in case of any problems. So many features comply to it.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 2, 2002 1:49:11 AM

If you're serious, maybe you shouldn't be reading the "explicit material" contained in this forum? I for one like windoze, but don't cry like a little girl when ever someone bags it. You now know what to expect from this forum, so in the words of Larry Flynt "If you don't like it, don't read it".
April 2, 2002 1:55:35 AM

Have you been downloading the online updates? That's all that second edition will be.....XP with all the SP1 updates installed automatically.
April 2, 2002 2:02:45 AM

Please, FreeBSD is the alternative OS of choice :) 

(uh oh)

Linux machines are good gateways.....that's about it :) 
April 2, 2002 3:50:06 AM

<A HREF="http://www.cdanson.freeserve.co.uk/lyrics.html#ring" target="_new">And the flames rise higher...</A>

Seriously though, Linux is better for a great deal more than gateways. It has better SMP support than FreeBSD and slightly better TCP/IP support. I've had a Kerberos/NIS/DNS/Samba/FTP server running on Linux 2.4, and the only time it's ever gone down in the past year is for a power outage.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
April 3, 2002 8:35:57 AM

Yep. I have been with all the SP1 updates. However, I frequently reinstall Windows so it's better to have a new CD.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal
!