Upgrading And Repairing PCs 21st Edition: Processor Features

References
By
published

Multi-Core Technology

HT Technology simulates two processors in a single physical core. If multiple logical processors are good, having two or more physical processors is a lot better. A multi-core processor, as the name implies, actually contains two or more processor cores in a single processor package. From outward appearances, it still looks like a single processor (and is considered as such for Windows licensing purposes), but inside there can be two, three, four, or even more processor cores. A multi-core processor provides virtually all the advantages of having multiple separate physical processors, all at a much lower cost.

Both AMD and Intel introduced the first dual-core x86-compatible desktop processors in May 2005. AMD’s initial entry was the Athlon 64 X2, whereas Intel’s first dual-core processors were the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 and the Pentium D. The Extreme Edition 840 was notable for also supporting HT Technology, allowing it to appear as a quad-core processor to the OS. These processors combined 64-bit instruction capability with dual internal cores—essentially two processors in a single package. These chips were the start of the multicore revolution, which has continued by adding more cores along with additional extensions to the instruction set. Intel introduced the first quad-core processors in November 2006, called the Core 2 Extreme QX and Core 2 Quad. AMD subsequently introduced its first quad-core desktop PC processor in November 2007, called the Phenom.

Note: There has been some confusion about Windows and multi-core or Hyper-Threaded processors. Windows XP and later Home editions support only one physical CPU, whereas Windows Professional, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions support two physical CPUs. Even though the Home editions support only a single physical CPU, if that chip is a multicore processor with HT Technology, all the physical and virtual cores are supported. For example, if you have a system with a quad-core processor supporting HT Technology, Windows Home editions will see it as eight processors, and all of them will be supported. If you had a motherboard with two of these CPUs installed, Windows Home editions would see the eight physical/virtual cores in the first CPU, whereas Professional, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions would see all 16 cores in both CPUs.

Multi-core processors are designed for users who run multiple programs at the same time or who use multithreaded applications, which pretty much describes all users these days. A multithreaded application can run different parts of the program, known as threads, at the same time in the same address space, sharing code and data. A multithreaded program runs faster on a multicore processor or a processor with HT Technology enabled than on a single-core or non-HT processor.

The diagram below illustrates how a single-core processor (left) and a dual-core processor (right) handle multitasking:

It’s important to realize that multicore processors don’t improve single-task performance much. If you play non-multithreaded games on your PC, it’s likely that you would see little advantage in a multi-core or hyperthreaded CPU. Fortunately, more and more software (including games) is designed to be multithreaded to take advantage of multi-core processors. The program is broken into multiple threads, all of which can be divided among the available CPU cores.

Bestofmedia Team
18 Comments Comment from the forums
  • k1114
    Keep it coming.
    Reply
  • renzhe
    9412 pins; imagine that.
    Reply
  • ta152h
    Ugggh, got to page two before being disgusted this time. This author is back to writing fiction.

    The Pentium (5th generation, in case the author didn't know, thus the "Pent"), DID execute x86 instructions. It was the Pentium Pro that didn't. That was the sixth generation.

    CISC and RISC are not arbitary terms, and RISC is better when you have a lot of memory, that's why Intel and AMD use it for x86. They can't execute x86 instructions effectively, so they break it down to RISC type operations, and then execute it. They pay the penalty of adding additional stages in the pipeline which slows down the processor (greater branch mispredict penalty), adds size, and uses power. If they are equal, why would anyone take this penalty?

    Being superscalar has nothing to do with being RISC or CISC. Admittedly, the terms aren't carved in stone, and the term can be misleading, as it's not necessarily the number of instructions that defines RISC. Even so, there are clear differences. RISC has fixed length instructions. CISC generally does not. RISC has much simpler memory addressing modes. The main difference is, RISC does not have microcoding to execute instructions - everything is done in hardware. Obviously, this strongly implies much simpler, easier to execute instructions, which make it superior today. However, code density is less for RISC, and that was very important in the 70s and early 80s when memory was not so large. Even now, better density means better performance, since you'll hit the faster caches more often.

    This article is also wrong about 3D Now! It was not introduced as an alternative to SSE, SSE was introduced as an alternative to 3D Now!, which predated SSE. In reality, 3D Now! was released because the largest difference between the K6 and Intel processors was floating point. Games, or other software that could use 3D Now!, rather than relying entirely on x87 instructions, could show marked performance improvement for the K6-2. It was relatively small to implement, and in the correct workloads could show dramatic improvements. But, of course, almost no one used it.

    The remarks about the dual bus are inaccurate. The reason was that motherboard bus speeds were not able to keep up with microprocessors speeds (starting with the 486DX2). Intel suffered the much slower bus speed to the L2 cache on the Pentium and Pentium MMX, but moved the L2 cache on the same processor package (but not on the same die) with the Pentium Pro. The purpose of having the separate buses was that one could access the L2 cache at a much higher speed; it wasn't limited to the 66 MHz bus speed of the motherboard. The Pentium Pro was never intended to be mainstream, and was too expensive, so Intel moved the L2 cache onto the Slot 1 cartridge, and ran it at half bus speed, which in any case was still much faster than the memory bus.

    That was the main reason they went to the two buses.

    That was as far as I bothered to read this. It's a pity people can't actually do fact checking when they write books, and make up weird stories that only have a passing resemblance to reality.

    And then act like someone winning this misinformation is lucky. Good grief, what a perverse world ...

    Reply
  • Reynod
    ta152h sir you are correct.

    Reply
  • spookyman
    Yes you are correct on the bus issue. VESA local bus was designed to overcome the limitations of the ISA bus.

    As for the reason Intel went with a slot design for the Pentium 2 was to prevent AMD from using it. You can patent and trademark a slot design.

    As for the Pentium Pro, it had issues from handling 16bit x86 instruction sets. The solution was to program around it. The was an inherent computational flaw with the Pentium Pro too.
    Reply
  • Kraszmyl
    I don't think there is a single page that isn't piled with inaccurate or incomplete information.......this is perhaps the worst thing I've ever read on tomshardware and I don't see how you let it get published.
    Reply
  • therogerwilco
    Kinda nice for generic info, was hoping for more explanation of some of the finer points of cpu architecture
    Reply
  • Reynod
    Perhaps the most important thing to note from this is just how clever some of our users are ... so get into the forums and help out the n00bs with their problems guys !!

    :)
    Reply
  • Sprongy
    Not to be anal but aren't all Core i3 processors, dual cores (2). Some have Hyper-Threading to make it like 4 cores. The last chart above should read Core i3 - 2 cores. Just saying...
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    11830610 said:
    Not to be anal but aren't all Core i3 processors, dual cores (2). Some have Hyper-Threading to make it like 4 cores. The last chart above should read Core i3 - 2 cores. Just saying...

    not on mobile. some mobile i3s are single core, same with the mobile i5s... those are all dual core... with hyperthreading.

    there are even dual core i5s in haswell on the desktop. (they are the ones with a (t) after the number)
    Reply