HT vs Dual Core

[texp4]

Hi,

I had use Intel P4 Hyperthreading and I love it, multi-taskings are awesome, then I switched to AMD64 ( Venice ), I love this one too due to its lower power consumption and less heat. But its hyper transport is not even close to Intel HT. It is much slower to do muti-tasking. I wonder if AMD Dual Core will overcome the HT ?
Thanks

 

[fAlCoNNiAn]

Hi,

I had use Intel P4 Hyperthreading and I love it, multi-taskings are awesome, then I switched to AMD64 ( Venice ), I love this one too due to its lower power consumption and less heat. But its hyper transport is not even close to Intel HT. It is much slower to do muti-tasking. I wonder if AMD Dual Core will overcome the HT ?
Thanks

first off, hyper-transport (HTT) and Hyper-Threading (HT) are two different things. HTT is amd's "special" technology which affects the fsb, basically that quickness that data relays from on source to another (memory-->cpu, etc).

HT, is a technology developed by intel to simulate two processors, therefore allowing two threads to be executed at the same time. HT is the cheapo route for dual cpu's/dual cores. when you have two cores, the computer sees that as two processors as well, therefore you have a genuine dual core computer, as opposed to HT, which there is only one core, but that one core simulated two.

amd's 64 chip line, has only one core and cannot execute two threads at the same time, therefore multitasking is not as good as on the intel HT/dual core line.

therefore in amd's x2 chip line, the multitasking will be the same or about equal to intel's HT/intel's dual core. if you multitask and got used to the HT technology, and you want the smoothness, and you want amd, then your only option is AMD X2 (because of the dual cores).

hope that helps.

 

[texp4]

first off, hyper-transport (HTT) and Hyper-Threading (HT) are two different things. HTT is amd's "special" technology which affects the fsb, basically that quickness that data relays from on source to another (memory-->cpu, etc).

HT, is a technology developed by intel to simulate two processors, therefore allowing two threads to be executed at the same time. HT is the cheapo route for dual cpu's/dual cores. when you have two cores, the computer sees that as two processors as well, therefore you have a genuine dual core computer, as opposed to HT, which there is only one core, but that one core simulated two.

amd's 64 chip line, has only one core and cannot execute two threads at the same time, therefore multitasking is not as good as on the intel HT/dual core line.

therefore in amd's x2 chip line, the multitasking will be the same or about equal to intel's HT/intel's dual core. if you multitask and got used to the HT technology, and you want the smoothness, and you want amd, then your only option is AMD X2 (because of the dual cores).

hope that helps.

great explaination. It definitely helps me.
Thank you

 

[Shelnutt2]

Come back to intel...intel is much better at Multitasking...and were getting closer on the gaming to AMD.

 

[texp4]

Come back to intel...intel is much better at Multitasking...and were getting closer on the gaming to AMD.

Too hot and use too much power.

 

[Electron Chaser]

I would take a high end dual core chip over HT any day of the week.

 

[texp4]

I would take a high end dual core chip over HT any day of the week.

Would 3800+ or 4200+ dual core good enough to beat a regular intel HT like 640 or 660 ?

 

[ronaldo]

Would 3800+ or 4200+ dual core good enough to beat a regular intel HT like 640 or 660 ?

without a problem in almost all multitasking scenarios(in heavy ones for sure)
dual-core is better than HT. HT ARE NOT 2 REAL CPUS!!!
Pentium D is better than a regular HT cpu in multitasking...(in heavy ones scenarios..)

look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=12

and here dual-core impresions from anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=16

 

[fAlCoNNiAn]

dual core will always beat HT, since its not two physical cores, but instead one core that simulates two.

i explained this in my original post.

 

[texp4]

dual core will always beat HT, since its not two physical cores, but instead one core that simulates two.

i explained this in my original post.

I kinda new to these , I read some review last night.
With AMD Dual Core , you will see 2 CPU in CPU-Z ( same as Intel HT ). Wouldn't this be the same as Intel HT ( called AMD Hyper Thread ??? )
With Intel Pentium D , you will see 4 CPU in CPU-Z, if HT is disable on these Pentium D, does it mean that you still can see 2 CPU ?

 

[perfectturmoil]

I kinda new to these , I read some review last night.
With AMD Dual Core , you will see 2 CPU in CPU-Z ( same as Intel HT ). Wouldn't this be the same as Intel HT ( called AMD Hyper Thread ??? )
With Intel Pentium D , you will see 4 CPU in CPU-Z, if HT is disable on these Pentium D, does it mean that you still can see 2 CPU ?

Dual cores are not the same as Hyper Threading. HT doesn't even come close.. HT is a workaround to get a boost in multitasking.. Dual cores are the real deal.. adding an entire other cpu so you can do two things at once. Hyperthreading adds a small amount of performance (something like 10-20% if I am not mistaken - anyone have real stats?) Dual cores will add around 70% or so.

Pentium D's (aside from the EE's) do not have hyperthreading.

 

[texp4]

Dual cores are not the same as Hyper Threading. HT doesn't even come close.. HT is a workaround to get a boost in multitasking.. Dual cores are the real deal.. adding an entire other cpu so you can do two things at once. Hyperthreading adds a small amount of performance (something like 10-20% if I am not mistaken - anyone have real stats?) Dual cores will add around 70% or so.

Pentium D's (aside from the EE's) do not have hyperthreading.

great help.
I will go for AMD Dual Core. I used to multi task and my P4 was much better than my Venice. My first mistake when I switch was I thought Hyper transport = Hyper Thread