Compairing 2 CPUs Help Please

How bout we just agree to disagree?

I do understand it. AMD has taken the same stance as I have as far as HT goes. I guess we could say I back AMD on this.

 

But you obviously don't understand it if you make nonsensical conclusions about it and analogies that simply don't compare to it. And now you are coming up with more bologna like AMD has a "stance" on it.

Some of your conclusions would be warranted, however, if you simply looked at Intel's BS marketing of it to numbnuts. But if you actually look at the technical aspect of it and its usage in real life, you will see that it in fact does make sense and provides a real benefit in both theory and practice.

 

I am a novice laptop user and dual core has always suited my needs.
unless your girlfriend likes playing PC games (stuff that requires a dedicated graphics card) dual core should be adequate.

 

And that's why Intel's mid range i7 940 beats out AMD's top hexacore 1090T in CPU benchmark. Intel's lowest hexacore crushes the 1090T and even some Opterons.

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

 

Intel Hyper-Threading vs. AMD True Core Scalability | Business Blog

They do have a stance!

I am trying to end this with you but you insist on keeping it going. I voiced an opinion when I first posted.

You seem to try and challenge me on a knowledge level every time you speak to me. How do you know me? Do you even have a clue what I might know? The way you understand things and present them makes you an individual! Just because my views vary from your do not make you superior in some way.

Get off your soap box and let's just agree to disagree!

 

All that link shows is that the benefit of doubling the number of threads of a specific benchmark is 14% with hyperthreading on the same number of cores, while 90% by doubling the amount of cores. AMD is just trying to say that doubling the number of cores is better than running hyperthreading, so buy 8 core Opterons instead of quad core Xeons. Nobody except the idiots who believe they pretty much have quad core i3's because the task manager said so are going to argue against this. I just don't know what you are trying to show here or who you are trying to convince. But hyperthreading is definitely a plus and a great bang for the buck. For only 5% more silicon, it can increase performance by up to 30% depending on the scenario, which is a much better bargain than doubling the amount of silicon for less than a 100% increase in performance.

 

AMD haven't perfected HT that is why they say it sucked.
HT replicate the cache and registers without physically replicating execution unit making a poor man's Dual Core possible.
There are benefits from HT, it is cheaper as you do not need to make extra execution units but give you extra threads for processing.
But it is difficult to perfect as you have to deal with CPU affinity and Cache/register sharing of data.

 

This thread has stalled . . . I am closing it. Original poster, if you didn't get the answer you were looking for, feel free to create a new thread.