Is HT almost just like haveing dual cores???

I know that it's not the same thing but will it allow me to run programs that require a dual core processor (whenever those are released)

All of the definitions of HT that I have read online say that it is basically a way of making a single core processor act like a dualcore.

 

hyperthreading is not like dual core too much. in ht, you get on cpu that can sort of do 2 things at once. but its sharing all the same internal resources with itself, so thats the killer. sure, it can do 2 threads at once, but once a thread is heading out, the other one has to wait its turn before it can leave. not really fair dual core has a seperate physical part of the cpu that does threads. amd's and intel's dual cores are very different too. amd made a cpu that, from the get go, was set up to do 2 things at once. each core has its own cache, and own way out of the cpu. intel stuck 2 prescott cores on top of one another. the 2 cores share the same cache and pathway out of the cpu.

 

I'm far from an expert on computers and such, but I think basically hyperthreading is really just a "ghetto" form of dual core.

 

What HT does, is basically allow another thread to be executed while the current is waiting for data from the RAM.

HT would be totally useless for processors like the P-M and any AMD, but the P4 gets a little bump in performance ... 5% at best (and that's when you are stretching it)

 

Seconding what Quester says - basically, you get an extra, "virtual" core when the CPU is just waiting for data. Dual-core is much better, as you actually have two cores to work with all the time.

 

dang. my explanation must have been too long

 

Are there such things as programs that require dual cores?

 

For the average home user. NO. There are some that can make use of it, but nothing that requires it exclusively.

As for prof. applications, sure there are a lot that can be made to use as many processors as you have. Remember AMD Opteron was developed with 8 parallel CPUs in mind ... that was the main reason for the very efficient hypertransport system that they designed

 

Frankly...none of these seem to be as efficient as the old dual-processor options back in the days of the old reliable BX chipset. If I remember correctly, my old dual PIII 500(on an Asus P2B-D board), allowed each of the processors to independently access the two sets of RAM(bank 0/2 and bank 1/3) for data. Not really a separate pathway to the RAM(at least I don't think so...that chipset wasn't solely for dual processors so I doubt it'd have that feature), but it definitely allowed data to be allocated separately in the banks.

I was never entirely sure of the specifics on how that worked, and I don't think it could have happened all that incredibly efficiently since I was only running 512MB of RAM on that box, but I guess it helped somehow. None of the current dual core implementations will offer that...but I guess that's why they'll continue to offer actual dual processor options in the server market. Eventually there'll be chipsets out there that offer completely separate connections to banks of RAM for those processors. Kind of a band-aid until someone steps into clustering I guess.

 

Not yet. And there won't be for a long time. Several years, minimum.

 

I don't think so - dual-core is going become the norm in about a year, so I'd think companies would start releasing such things as dual-core games and photoshop in less that 2 years.

 

while on the subject on dual core.... would a logical choice of buying a amd x2 4800 be better than a fx 55? thats the choice i made... im happy with my cpu but the only main reason i didnt get x2 is cuz i heard some urban legends that dual core is only good with multi threaded programs =\ then after the fact i find that x2 is awesome at games...

 

I doubt it. There might be dual-core support everywhere, but unless the industry decides to pull a random "MS says Halo 2 is only on Vista because we say so", kind of thing, there is still going to be real single core support.

Besides, after we've made the transistion to 2 cores, then intel will want 4 and 8 and 16 in a chip, and developers will all be like "wtf? how are we supposed to program now?".

More cores != better performance when only running one app. Games might do better with 2, but any more is a waste, as you'll spend more time trying to write efficient mulit-core code for some small thing than write code at all.

 

That's right...it'll take years for dual core applications to show up everywhere...but that doesn't mean you'll be required to have dual cores.

People on this site keep forgetting...90% of the people who buy computers won't come to a site like this. They don't replace their equipment that often. They don't upgrade their computers like many here.

So why release software that won't run on their computers? You wouldn't make money then.

Heck...even businesses typically keep their machines for around 3 years(it varies...I know...but a typical desktop in a corporate environment, that's about right...maybe on the shorter end for larger companies). That's a substantial number of machines in use now...that might not get replaced for 2-3 years. They won't be releasing software that won't run on all those machines...at least not any major market titles.

 

but that doesn't mean you'll be required to have dual cores.
----------------------------------------------------------

yeah but do u think that the games that utilize dual core to get crappy framrates on something like a p4 3.8ghz with HT

My biggest fear is that single core processors will become the achilles heal of an otherwise kick ass system

 

It's gonna be a while. I think it'll fade out just like processor speed issues...the same way. The fact that your 3.8Ghz P4 will be somewhat outdated with the newer processors(with obviously different clock speeds...so it's hard to compare just those with the different architecture) just due to raw power...not only the dual core, in a few years.