| Hyper-Threading or dual-core?
Looks like it's one or the other |
MatthewHSE
msg:3197514 | 7:59 pm on Dec 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm tentatively looking into building a new computer sometime soon, and I want to make sure and get plenty of CPU power. I'm leaning toward a dual-CPU motherboard, but I can't decide which type of processor to get - hyperthreading or dual-core. It looks like they don't make dual-core processors with hyperthreading capabilities, so I'm stuck having to choose between them. Trouble is I don't know what's best. Anyone have any stories, ideas, facts, or opinions to share on this question? ;)
|
DamonHD
msg:3197581 | 9:11 pm on Dec 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Dual-core gives you nearly 2x the throughput of a single core. Typically Hyperthreading gives you only say 10% over a single core, and can even make some things slower. Hyperthreading was a nice idea, but it's done better in newer CPUs such as Sun's Niagara chip. Much better to get multiple cores if you want the extra speed and your workload is suitable. Rgds Damon
|
henry0
msg:3197619 | 9:56 pm on Dec 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Indeed you know about Anandtech
|
jtara
msg:3198659 | 4:04 am on Dec 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hyperthreading is in the past for Intel processors, at least for the near future. They've made enough improvements in other areas to more than make up for the loss of hyperthreading. There is always a tradeoff in processor design - how can the chip real-estate be used to maximum advantage? x thousand gates for hyper-threading vs x thousand gates for more-effective pipelining, for example. Going with hyperthreading means limiting yourself to obsolete processors. There really is not a choice here. It certainly may come back at some point in the future, but for now those are the facts.
|
MatthewHSE
msg:3203813 | 5:46 pm on Dec 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Thanks - dual core it is! ;)
|
|
|
