Right, This has been bugging me for a while.
I understand what the differences are but I just dont know the answer to the question.
What is better, HT on a chip with a higher clock speed, or dual core slower.
For example I have a Pentium D 805 2.66ghz dual core processor and think it is quick. But someone asked me what speed HT processor have to be to match it and arethere any circumstances where an HT cpu would beat the 805.
singlethreaded, single task Id say the HT chip but multithreaded or multitask, the cual core right?
Please help, Ive seen articles but nothing really makes it any clearer. By the way the specs of the chips I want to compare are:
Pentium D 805 2.66ghz 533mhz 1mb cache per core.
Prescott 541 HT 3.2ghz 800mhz 1mb cache.
Oh and please, no AMD fanboy "get an X2" instead stuff, cheers :D
Cheers
Tongy
SMP > SMT
Assuming the rest of the system is the same, for a single threaded app the Prescott 541 will be faster. Sheer clock speed wins out in those instances. HT helps a little but not a significant amount for multithreaded apps. The Dual Core CPU will be much faster for multithreaded apps.
so buy a decent cooler, and crank that FSB up to 200 :) clock speed to burn!
what have you got against the AMD?
prolly just doesnt like me, who is biased.
we are happy with our flaws.
TBH, Hyperthreading is not useful in most situations. It can help with system responsiveness but not when it comes to Encoding. A dual core cpu should beat a HT processor when running multi-thread enabled software.
HT was a technology that Intel had to implement to get more usage of the very inefficient P4 core. Now with a dual core you can have 2 very inefficient P4 cores. Or you can get a mans cpu and get the conroe.
The AMD X2 cpus are also very good but are soundly beaten in most benchmarks by the conroe.
I do recall in the high end server market that a few companies disabled HT before they shipped the systems because it made software perform worse!
Quote from: Binary Shadowwhat have you got against the AMD?
Im guessing nothing, its probably just that he doesnt own a system that he can put one in ;)
To ask such a question you can see why Tongy was silly enough to go for a P4 based CPU in the first place :D
Just my 2p :twisted:
No AMD fan boy am I :!:
I think he should also rule out the Intel Fanboys opinions too :D
so there will be no replys either way.
congrats.
Well, not really any surer than I was before.
All I can gather is that multitasking would be best with dual core.
What benefit is HT and how come it can prove about 30% than non HT products when executing single threaded apps?
I saw a test on THG between a P4 3.0ghz HT and a P4 3.6with HT turned off. The HT chip beat it in all tests, not sure if anyone can shed any light on this furthur.
I will be doing a little side by side test of a Pentium D 805 @ 3.2ghz and a P4 541 3.2ghz (1mb cache) soon, when I get the machines up at the same time :D
Any wagers as to who will win what?
Cheers
Tongy
I wouldnt trust any of THGs tests, as they are massively intel biased.
Although for an Intel vs Intel test it should be ok.
I remember the AMD64 vs Intel EM64T test, and they couldnt get a stable Intel rig, so they kept resetting the AMDs timer.
Dual Core will do FAR FAR more than any HT ;)