Tom's 3.06 GHz HT Review

[Cowboy X]

here is the anand graph, they do compare HT to HT http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1746&p=6

how do i attach images bigger than 300x300?

Thanx I don't remember seeing that graph . To get perfectly even scores though is questionable . There are always slightly higher or lower even with the same cpu and setup on different runs . Site's like Tom's show a small , but consistent drop with HT on . Pleae bear in mind as well that the content creation bench contains benches of stuff used by average ppl alot more than the positive 3d max banches .

 

[imgod2u]

This has been by far the most variable set of reviews I've seen. Usually, with a new chip release, each site (except for a few exceptions) would report similar results (i.e. this chip being xx% faster than a previous chip on average). The HT figures in this case, however, seems to vary significantly. Ace's review (a site I put above all the others as far as credibility) shows very little cases in which HT actually decreased performance. Anand shows a relative percentage graph for HT (very helpful) but failed to show HT/non-HT results in his general suite. [H]'s results were pretty questionable as it was one of the few sites that got nothing but performance gains (and very big ones at that) from enabling HT. Toms, on the other hand, showed a bit of decrease with HT in single applications and an increase in others. While I may not question Tom's numbers, I do question the relevance of some of his benchmarks. Lightwave, Maya and 3dsMax are far more relevant 3d benchmarks than Cinema 4XL. Why didn't he include those? What about games besides Q3A? One thing I did love about Ace's review was the inclusion of WC3 as one of the benchmarks. A benchmark much more relevant to myself and many others I know.

Another thing to add about Tom's numbers. In many of the cases, the "decrease" or "increase" was well within the margin of error of testing. So saying that they are actual "increases" or "decreases" is questionable. Aces has shown some multitasking cases in which HT has significantly accelerated certain applications and other cases in which it has significantly decelerated certain applications (when multitasked with other applications). The cases of decreased performance would be when running both a multithreaded application and another single-threaded application at once. The multithreaded application is usually so CPU-intensive that it takes up both logical processors and even when the single-threaded application is ran in the foreground, it gets "pushed asside" by the other application. Causing a noticable decrease in the performance of the single-threaded applications. In many cases, Ace's review shows very little difference with HT and many times a little increase, although still within the margin of error.

 

[Toysrme]

I still say if you havn't watched that video do so.
CowboyX I put it to you. How many people on THIS forum do you think would benifit from it? I bet you could smack up over 70/75% of it. And even normal Office use can get frustrating for the average user at times still.

-Toysrme

 

[Cowboy X]

Sure I'd love to have HT , but will i get a new board and cpu for it ......... no . It woulld benefit me to an extent when doing things like folding . But for the most part I'm the type of guy who would rather run an intensive task by itself .

imgod2u .......... I agree that many of Tom's results were within the margin of error but for me it goes beyond coincidence when the great majority are a little lower . Normally some should be higher , some lower and some even . Not almost all lower ........ that's a trend .

 

[jazztrumpet216]

ok, i have no problem with intel and hypertreading...

i just disappointment multi-processing performance,
intel sells his products with "mhz" and "some HT like features"

but i say again, that's not a real "multiprocessin',
and intel r liar again...

They don't say it's an SMP setup, they say it's hyperthreading. There's a difference, and Intel knows that.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet that if AMD came out with this technology, and it was marketed the same way, it would be "such a great form of innovation" or something like that.

 

[ShadowFolder]

i can't say u're wrong,
perhaps i react little furious...

yep,
u'r right about, every chipmaker has "new tech propaganda",

but i think,
amd has better and useful techs on chips,
and its CHEAPER than intel...

(i'm not amd's advocate)
(i don't want start absurd amd vs intel battle)
if i bother u, sorry 4 that

 

[jazztrumpet216]

i can't say u're wrong,
perhaps i react little furious...

yep,
u'r right about, every chipmaker has "new tech propaganda",

but i think,
amd has better and useful techs on chips,
and its CHEAPER than intel...

(i'm not amd's advocate)
(i don't want start absurd amd vs intel battle)
if i bother u, sorry 4 that

I tend to agree. AMD's technology on chips is more practical for use now. But hyperthreading is something that programmers may want to make use of in the future, and since it's now been released, they can.

I'm not in it for an AMD vs. Intel battle either (read sig), but I am pro-Intel in the simple fact that like Intel. My choice. I'm really trying to convince my dad that a dual AMD rig is the way to go for a new computer for him, since it can be built fairly cheaply and has a lot of power to it, but he's stuck in the viewpoint that AMD is an inferior chip. *sigh*