Windows 7 Benefits from HyperThreading Better

[snakeoil]

Look at the same graph. 4 real Intel cores > 8 real AMD cores.

dual xeon 5570 nehalem vs dual opteron 2384

thats 8 cores 16 threads intel vs 8 cores amd

 

[btarunr]

From the same review:

4 real intel cores > 16 real AMD cores.

Perfect example of how we're digging up only those graphs that suit our contention best. A better way would be comparing Core i7 to Phenom, in desktop applications, and on a client OS.

 

[snakeoil]

From the same review:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/xeon5570_032709111158/18677.png

4 real intel cores > 16 real AMD cores.

Perfect example of how we're digging up only those graphs that suit our contention best. A better way would be comparing Core i7 to Phenom, in desktop applications, and on a client OS.

yes for some applications nehalems has advantage, but hyperthreading makes nehalem powerhungry, dont scale as well,nehalems are more expensive(cpu, motherboard and memory)
and next month well see Istanbul in action with the same tdp.
magny cours is very close too. intel will have 6 cores just in q1 2010 maybe

 

[btarunr]

yes for some applications nehalems has advantage, but hyperthreading makes nehalem powerhungry, dont scale as well,nehalems are more expensive(cpu, motherboard and memory)
and next month well see Istanbul in action with the same tdp.
magny cours is very close too. intel will have 6 cores just in q1 2010 maybe

Despite being "power hungry", the performance per watt equation fits perfectly. i.e., the performance increment justifies the increased power consumption. Also your fact is wrong. Intel already has a 6-core processor, codenamed Dunnington (Xeon E7000 series), and is already selling it.

 

[Mussels]

Despite being "power hungry", the performance per watt equation fits perfectly. i.e., the performance increment justifies the increased power consumption. Also your fact is wrong. Intel already has a 6-core processor, codenamed Dunnington (Xeon E7000 series), and is already selling it.

wow. shiny chip.

 

[Valdez]

From the same review:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/xeon5570_032709111158/18677.png

4 real intel cores > 16 real AMD cores.

Perfect example of how we're digging up only those graphs that suit our contention best. A better way would be comparing Core i7 to Phenom, in desktop applications, and on a client OS.

It seems that application doesn't scale well with many cores. Because of this, this page of the benchmark is irrevelant in comparing 16 cores and such.

 

[btarunr]

It seems that application doesn't scale well with many cores. Because of this, this page of the benchmark is irrevelant in comparing 16 cores and such.

If it didn't scale well with many cores, HyperThreading shouldn't have made a positive impact when enabled, it clearly did.

 

[Valdez]

If it didn't scale well with many cores, HyperThreading shouldn't have made a positive impact when enabled, it clearly did.

Yes it uses more than 4 cores, but not 16.

 

[btarunr]

Yes it uses more than 4 cores, but not 16.

When an application is advertised as optimised for multi-processor systems, there's no saying what's the upper limit of CMPs it benefits from. The objective of HyperThreading isn't to give you a 100% boost, but rather 10~20% at best. The performance increment is in-sync with that estimation, telling that it is benefiting from 8 threads.

 

[Valdez]

When an application is advertised as optimised for multi-processor systems, there's no saying what's the upper limit of CMPs it benefits from. The objective of HyperThreading isn't to give you a 100% boost, but rather 10~20% at best. The performance increment is in-sync with that estimation, telling that it is benefiting from 8 threads.

So do you really believe that 4 real intel cores + 4 virtual intel cores > 16 real amd cores, in applications that use all of the cores?
Nehalem is really fast, but not that much.

 

[Mussels]

So do you really believe that 4 real intel cores + 4 virtual intel cores > 16 real amd cores, in applications that use all of the cores?
Nehalem is really fast, but not that much.

regardless of how many threads, you're going to have a bottleneck somewhere. nehalem has a stupidly large amount of memory bandwidth so in situations where having 16 cores is no longer the limit and the memory is, i7 is still going to come out in front.

 

[R_1]

Good news for netbooks. Now Atom CPU & 945GSE can play COD4 with 3 FPS rather then 2.9. But netbooks can't handle Vista of Win7, the OS is too demanding! So good news for 2-4-6-8 core CPUs. But they had problems with single thread software and don't' need HT at all. All they need now is a instruction set that can disguise all cores as a single one and Intel is writing it as we speak.
Sorry for misunderstanding, but 945GSE can't play COD4 at all.

 

[Mussels]

Good news for netbooks. Now Atom CPU & 945GSE can play COD4 with 3 FPS rather then 2.9. But netbooks can't handle Vista of Win7, the OS is too demanding!

you're wrong. very old hardware can run vista and 7 just fine. i have a system in this house right now that runs 7 just fine on 1GB of ram, and it ran vista fine too before i formatted it.

 

[R_1]

Look at this link : CW

 

[Mussels]

Look at this link : CW

that mini article is terrible.

I'm running 7 just fine on a sempron 2800+ (1.6Ghz) with 1GB 333MHz ram on a 40GB seagate HDD, and it runs fine. sure, its not snappy - but it doesnt pause or stutter, and all the applications you expect to run on a netbook/netbox run fine (firefox with 5 tabs, MSN, skype, kaspersky)

 

[R_1]

Kaspersky was too much for my C2D (3GHz, 8GB RAM DDR21066) machine, so I switched to Avira. You relay can't expect Kaspersky to run on netbook.
Of course there are different views of acceptable computer performance / lag.

 

[Mussels]

Kaspersky was too much for my C2D (3GHz, 8GB RAM DDR21066) machine, so I switched to Avira. You relay can't expect Kaspersky to run on netbook.
Of course there are different views of acceptable computer performance / lag.

if kaspersky lagged a machine like that... you had some serious issues going on unrelated to the antivirus.

 

[R_1]

Don't get me wrong , Kaspersky is a good antivirus software. It can outshine others in mission-critical applications, equipment & data, but you don't need it in netbook. HT can help only a little to crappy Atom CPU.

 

[Studabaker]

Despite being "power hungry", the performance per watt equation fits perfectly. i.e., the performance increment justifies the increased power consumption. Also your fact is wrong. Intel already has a 6-core processor, codenamed Dunnington (Xeon E7000 series), and is already selling it.

people have forgotten to mention how with that much money you could buy a small AMD farm with 10x the computing power.

 

[DrPepper]

people have forgotten to mention how with that much money you could buy a small AMD farm with 10x the computing power.

And 10x the power consumption.

 

[Mussels]

And 10x the power consumption.

probably 5x the power consumption, but 10x the physical space demands for the sytems, overhead costs due to air conditioning the farm the room is in, etc.

 

[Hayder_Master]

is this push intel to another trail , i don't think so

 

[btarunr]

people have forgotten to mention how with that much money you could buy a small AMD farm with 10x the computing power.

For the target consumers of Xeon E7000, paying a $1000 more in return for long-term energy-cost reductions is hardly a pinch. 6 processing cores with a TDP of 90W. Also, you won't get a "small AMD farm with 10x the computing power" for the same price. Opterons don't sell for the prices Phenom sell, and Phenoms cannot be deployed in multi-socket, let alone 1U/2U racks.

 

[Shadin]

Hyperthreading is all right for consumer desktops, I suppose, though I don't think it's worth the heat and hassle. I'm surprised it's in i7 though, to be honest, considering that a lot of high-end server processes don't appreciate Hyperthreading.

 

[DrPepper]

Hyperthreading is all right for consumer desktops, I suppose, though I don't think it's worth the heat and hassle. I'm surprised it's in i7 though, to be honest, considering that a lot of high-end server processes don't appreciate Hyperthreading.

Where would the extra heat from hyperthreading come from ? They are only logical so they wouldn't add any heat asfaik.