Reversed HyperThreading, Done the AMD way.

Kurz · Apr 18, 2006

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Apr/bch20060417035855.htm

I cant wait till this comes out. I can bet you one of these will be under my tree. :santa:

Hopefully this isnt just a rumor...

speed bump · Apr 18, 2006

Umm thats basically called a multithreaded application, you need the correct code in the program you are using and you can pretty much do this already.

Cheator · Apr 18, 2006

speed bump said:
Umm thats basically called a multithreaded application, you need the correct code in the program you are using and you can pretty much do this already.

You can't really do this already. When you have a single threaded App, and 2+ cores, you can only use 1 core for it. With this, you can use ALL.

Kurz · Apr 18, 2006

Thats the beauty of it!
However I really Wish you can be selective with which apps you want to run Reverse HT on.

Mr. $T$ · Apr 18, 2006

This is for programs that are not designed to work on multicore processors. This means a real life speed up in games bcause even though it was not designed for it this little trick makes it work.

InfiniteThought · Apr 18, 2006

Wasn't this April 1 joke?

Hipcrostino · Apr 18, 2006

Everyone says everything was an Aprils fools joke.

Anyway, its makes perfect sence to do HT this way. I suprised its not around already. Even if it was an april fools joke, it will be the way of the furture, along with solid state hdds

dropadrop · Apr 18, 2006

Sure it makes perfect sence to implement something like this (even though this really does'nt have anything to do with hyperthreading), but I just can't picture how it would be done. How can you run one thread on two separate processors?

Cheator · Apr 18, 2006

dropadrop said:
Sure it makes perfect sence to implement something like this (even though this really does'nt have anything to do with hyperthreading), but I just can't picture how it would be done. How can you run one thread on two separate processors?

It has everything to do with HT. HT does 2 threads on 1 CPU, this does 1 thread on 2 cpus.

soloz2 · Apr 18, 2006

if this is true and it works then I may have a reason to switch over to AM2

Dan0512 · Apr 18, 2006

soloz2 said:
if this is true and it works then I may have a reason to switch over to AM2

Remember this is supposedly being planned for K10. Dunno if maybe there's AM3 when they release them...

dan

OC Detective · Apr 18, 2006

There was a thread about this already - the original source x-86secret even said themselves that it was a quiet news day and were looking for a story and cant vouch for its accuracy - even though it was they who claimed to interview the AMD engineer at a bar................

rseven · Apr 19, 2006

This story is getting picked up by a number of news outlets.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04/17/amd_reverse_hyperthreading/
It looks like it's for real and it looks like it has some real potential as well.

Kurz · Apr 19, 2006

I really hope this isnt a fake. The idea of Multiple CPU's seen as one is ingenious.
So that gives it some merit, time will tell.

However, I bet there are a slew of issues with it, hence the bar.

ochungry · Apr 19, 2006

If the rumor has any merit, and AMD will be able to create such technology, I am sure Intel will do it too. Then we are back to square1- Intel's "core microarchitecture" incorporated reverse HT, compared to AMD's doing the same and we have Intel beating AMD again. Unless this is exclusively AMD's patented Invention that Intel has to pay royalty, or Intel's "core" can not work and fails this technology.
I still think it was the creation of an egotistic individual who lacks attention among his "Bar" buddies.

dropadrop · Apr 20, 2006

Cheator said:
It has everything to do with HT. HT does 2 threads on 1 CPU, this does 1 thread on 2 cpus.

Uhm... Ok... :shrug:

So it works with threads...

Now please explain what it has to do with hyperthreading?

Or better yet, explain how it will work in general. It's quite logical that the cpu can use registers which are not in use to execute another thread, but how are you going to split one single thread into pieces knowing you will not break anything (game developers seem to be having a hard time doing it, so how could a stupid cpu suddenly automate it)?

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I have not yet seen anyone who could even explain the theory or reasoning behind the concept.

Cheator · Apr 20, 2006

dropadrop said:
Uhm... Ok...

So it works with threads...

Now please explain what it has to do with hyperthreading?

Or better yet, explain how it will work in general. It's quite logical that the cpu can use registers which are not in use to execute another thread, but how are you going to split one single thread into pieces knowing you will not break anything (game developers seem to be having a hard time doing it, so how could a stupid cpu suddenly automate it)?

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I have not yet seen anyone who could even explain the theory or reasoning behind the concept.

Good question. And I guess AMD would know the answer. I however don't. What I do know is that it has everything to do with HT because it is a similar concept to Hyperthreading. They share similar principles. Thats what I was saying.

Apo11o · Apr 20, 2006

Just an analogy, but isnt this something similar to striping a hard drive? Like you stagger the parts of the thread that go through each core so that they all come out in sequence? or is that an oversimplification?

Because as i understand it striping involves the files to be spread over two drives, so that when accessed the pieces of the files come from each hard drive in a staggered form but when they finally get to the motherboard they are in sequence.

ticktock123 · Apr 20, 2006

there is a very valid point going on right now. How do you take a stream of data and have two things work on it. It just seems that it would take longer because of the time spent to fit it back together.
I can see:
2 streams + 1 cpu = good
1 stream + 1 cpu = good
but i can't see
1 stream + 2 cpu = no good

Cheator · Apr 20, 2006

ticktock123 said:
there is a very valid point going on right now. How do you take a stream of data and have two things work on it. It just seems that it would take longer because of the time spent to fit it back together.
I can see:
2 streams + 1 cpu = good
1 stream + 1 cpu = good
but i can't see
1 stream + 2 cpu = no good

I think the previous example is a good one ot point out. Raid 0 (if you can call it raid) is faster than no raid at all. Obviously if there was a high latency with this sort of thing, I don't think AMD would bother with it (because really, this technology is useless from a marketing perspective IMO).

Reversed HyperThreading, Done the AMD way.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads