Is this hyperthreading all its cracked up to be? Does AMD have a anything
similar to compete?

Paul

Hyperthreading is way overrated. Early tests I have read show running processor intensive programs at the same time instead of in sequence will increase performance by up to 10% in some cases and decrease performance by 5% in other cases. The performance hit is blamed on the relatively small size of the level 2 cache. The newer chips with 1 MB or 2 MB L2 cache should help.

Paul wrote:
--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:15:41 GMT
Will Dormann <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

In principle a hyperthreaded CPU can handle two interrupts
simultaneously, just as a dual processor machine can. In practice, as
with all things hyperthreading, the efficiency with which it does so
depends on whether the particular code blocks on one or more of the
nonredundant elements in the pipelines.

IMO this is potentially its greatest benefit, but it's mostly of use in
I/O intensive environments, not memory- or calculation-intensive ones,
which means that it's not going to be terribly useful for most "home"
applications. It might, however, help analog video capture, which is
essentially taking a bitstream from PCI device, possibly doing some
processing on it, and moving it to another. But there it's only going to
help if the PCI bus is not already saturated--a dual-bus machine might
help there, but again you're getting into "serious server" territory and
duals would probably be a viable option in such a machine.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mike Walsh wrote:


I could be wrong, but I think the main advantage of Hyperthreading is
that it makes the computer *feel* faster by still retaining
responsiveness under heavy CPU load. (rather than cutting down the
time it takes to encode a video, for example)


-WD

Probably true. A processor intensive application running in the backgroup should not affect the response of another program as much. This probably would have made a big difference a few years ago, but with a 2 Ghz or faster processor it should not make much of a difference. Intel's advertisements are pushing the idea of using a hyperthreading processor using a gigabit network, but most computers with heavy traffic on gigabit networks are servers with more than one processor, so this point may be moot.

Will Dormann wrote:
--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

"Mike Walsh" <mikew137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3FA534AD.758FAA52@sbcglobal.net...
increase performance by up to 10% in some cases and decrease performance by
5% in other cases. The performance hit is blamed on the relatively small
size of the level 2 cache. The newer chips with 1 MB or 2 MB L2 cache should
help.
programs you're running must support dual processing in order to see a
valuable performance gain. Second thing is that the gain depends of the
programs. There are some sites where the why and how are explained in
detail, but the logic behind the process is complex.
Finally, on top of pure performance gain, there is also the benefit of
parallel processing.
With my P4 / 800 - 2.4 GHz and HT enabled, I can consult my Email while
rendering video in Premiere. No way to do this (without dropped frames)
without hyperthreading!

ElJerid wrote:

Don't you mean *capturing* video? Rendering should not be affected by
CPU load. The output file will be the same, but it'll just take longer
to do.


-WD

"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:lXcpb.7587$XP.325195@twister.neo.rr.com...

Right!
It' s capturing as well as exporting.
Thanks for correcting.

AMD does not have anything similar yet.

--
DaveW



"Paul" <private@private.com> wrote in message
news:3fa5219f$0$113$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net.. .

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:28:13 -0600
Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

AMD instead has three independent high-speed buses and 64-bit
processing. Which beats hyperthreading all hollow.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

So, if I was considering a processor upgrade, AMD is still the way to go?


Paul



"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
news:hMfpb.66455$275.163799@attbi_s53...

Paul wrote:
If you're using AMD now and are happy with them (as I am) then yes. There is
still life in the socket A format yet and their new 64bit CPUs look to be
really good to. (Although not socket A)
--
~misfit~

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:58:33 -0000, "Paul" <private@private.com> wrote:


You haven't told us what you're currently running, what more you need
of the machine, what's most important to you in a "PC", what the most
demanding jobs are... random manufacturer selection is only good if
you're offended by their competition, instead choose what's most
beneficial to your needs.


Dave

kony wrote:


What he said... :-)

--

Stacey

I'm currently using an Athlon Thunderbird 850mhz on an Abit KT7A board.

I've found lately that the newer games need faster hardware so I definately
need to upgrade.

I like AMD and I've never had any problems with them before so I wouldn't be
against buying AMD again.
When I bought my current CPU, it was one of the fastest CPUs available so I
would like to do the same again...get, not the fastest chip but one thats
right up there.

Ideally the chip will be 'future proof' for the next year/year and a half.
I don't know if I need another board but I suspect so so any
recommendations?



Cheers,
Paul



"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4qudqv8bnqekfkdr2c1ohc4dcqpag6g8ds@4ax.com...

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:07:41 -0000, "Paul" <private@private.com> wrote:

You don't mention the budget, but honestly I think you'd be better off
not buying near the fastest at any given time then waiting so long
till you upgrade again. An AMD box would be fine for gaming.

You're probably needing a new power supply, memory, (and video card?)
as well, and maybe even extensive case rework or new case to
accomodate higher heat output.

Or, were you talking about an entire system already?

I"m generally in favor of using hardware that's been in the market a
while, had some time to mature and have a few BIOS updates to patch
bugs. Along that line of thought you might consider an Athlon XP2800
and nForce2 motherboard, 512MB or 1GB of PC2700-3200 memory.

It won't be too long till the newer AMD chips are more reasonably
priced, but right now they're not a very good value... depends on how
long you want to wait till the upgrade I suppose, but going with an
XP2800 now would save quite a bit of $, make it more afordable to
update again, sooner than you did with current system.


Dave

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:07:41 +0000, Paul wrote:

core) or 2400+ and just plug it in your KT7A board. It will default to
2000MHz. 2100+ B core from newegg.com is $62 shipped. See link below for
more info.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Just wondering...

When doing the following at the same time, which would be a better choice -
Intel or AMD64?

- Unzipping CDRom image
- Dowloading email
- Scouring newsgroups with BNR2 or NewsBin
- Burning a DVD
- Copying files across 100mb LAN
- Browsing

....lots of mutlitasking going on here, but the bottleneck is actually access
to the hard drive.

Where is the best place to improve response? SATA? RAID? Specific chipset?
CPU type?



"~misfit~" <~misfit~@his.desk.com> wrote in message
news:muzpb.7059$Mn.200828@news.xtra.co.nz...