- August 17, 2009 at 7:34 pm #28759
Dak and I were working on some computers and were checking out the specs. In system properties it appeared to show the processor speed twice which usually meant dual core, running two processors…But this wasn't true…BOO HOO…Dak came up with this...
Hyper-threading is Intel's term for its simultaneous multithreading implementation in their Pentium 4, Atom, and Core i7 CPUs. Hyper-threading (officially termed Hyper-Threading Technology or HTT) is an Intel-proprietary technology used to improve parallelization of computations (doing multiple tasks at once) performed on PC microprocessors. A processor with hyper-threading enabled is treated by the operating system as two processors instead of one. This means that only one processor is physically present but the operating system sees two virtual processors, and shares the workload between them. Hyper-threading requires only that the operating system support multiple processors, but Intel recommends disabling HT when using operating systems that have not been optimized for the technology.
here is a screenshot of my computer saying it is core duo...the other computer has the processor speed twice but does not say anything about dual core...I will post a screenshot of the computer with hyper-threading to show how the specs can be misleading. When I get one finished.August 18, 2009 at 5:07 pm #32268
Remember it also says that Atom and i7 cpus have hyperthreading. All i7's are quad core, so they have 4 physical cores, but with hyperthreading enabled the OS sees 8 separate CPU's !!August 19, 2009 at 1:01 am #32269
Yeah I was going to say the same Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads don't support Hyper Threading,the Atom processor has only 1 of the 3 or 4 Atom processors as a Dual Core the other 2 or 3 are single core processors.Might just be a Windows cock up, mine shows up fine with just one mention of the speed (2.10GHz) although mine is a AMD processor.Here's a rubbish screenshot of it, resolution went down the pan once I cropped it in the Windows Photo Gallery thing.August 19, 2009 at 4:29 am #32270
a little more informationMultiple cores(dual core (2), tri core (3), quad core (4), and sext core (6)) ~not sure on sext, anyone know what it is?refer to the number of task centers (for lack of a better phrase) in a processor. Basically they can put two, three four or even six processor in a single chip, and make them all play nice together, greatly increasing the speed at which the processor can... process information.Multi-Threading on a single processorThis refers to running multiple tasks on a single processor chip, instead of two like a dual core. there is a significant processor speed increase when multitasking, but at a loss, because the way this technology works, it uses the part of the processor that isnt being used to perform a different task, aiding tremendously in multitasking, but only under a light load. but, since many people rarely push their pc's to the limit with normal use.My definitions on these may be off, as i just wrote them from what i personally have learned without actually researching into the topic much at all, but for the most part i believe these definitions to be true.August 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm #32271
ok what about core duo and dual core?
All Core 2 Duo Processors are Dual Core Processors..All Pentium D Processors are Dual Core Processors..All Intel Dual Core Processors are Dual Core Processorsâ€¦Pentium D is nothing but 2 Prescott Processors side by sideâ€¦ runs very hot, not a good OverClockerâ€¦Intel Core 2 Duo processors are next gen processors from Intel on 65 nm platformâ€¦ developed from Ground up with new Architecture called Coreâ€¦ so they are whole new Processors just Jump like Pentium 2 to Pentium 3 or Pentium 4â€¦ Expect one Core 2 Duo Lowest End Processors like E4400/E4300 taking up and beating Intel Pentium D 3.8 GHz ones with ease â€¦ runs damn cool and super over clockerâ€¦Intel Dual Core Processors are just launched striped down version of Core 2 Duos.. there are 2 in Market for Desktop range, E2140 runs at 1.6 GHz with 1 MB L2 and 800 MHz FSB and E2160 with 1.8 GHz with same specs of E2140â€¦. these are not Pentium D rather they are same batch like Core 2 Duo based on the new Core Technologyâ€¦. they perform same like Core 2 Duos but they were launched with a very low price to counter the market of super low cost but high performer AMD X2 range line up to AMD X2 4000â€¦.August 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm #32272
not sure what the question is since you seem to have posted the answer tooAugust 19, 2009 at 2:30 pm #32273
Intel are actually developing the chips smaller than 35nm, it's 32nm but close enough ;), under the new Westmere architecture for around late this year – early next year and will be 6 core processors I think rumoured to be under a Core i9 name, as well as one codenamed Sandy Bridge further on in 2010, current i7's are on Nehalem architecture, Core 2's are on Merom and Penryn architecture – http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=668They have Core i5's coming out in late September which will have 2-4 cores, basically they are scaled down i7's which don't have the QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) and only have a Dual Channel DDR3 memory controller instead of Triple Channel.They have as Dak mentioned earlier Core i3's coming out which will have an Integrated GPU, 32nm CPU, 45nm GPU and will be Dual Cores.All look good especially those i3's with the integrated GPU's, it basically Intel just trying to create processors closer to AMD prices and if it pays off and they do come out as cheap as AMD processors then AMD do have trouble on there hands. They have only just caught up with the Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads with there AMD Phenom II processors, this will just push them further behind, guess it comes to be expected that the market leader can pull strings like this.I don't prefer any processor company I just like to see competition on all fronts (means lower prices for us) and AMD doesn't have processors that can compete against the latest Intel offerings, I'd say AMD are at least 12-18 months behind Intel, which is like a lifetime in the computing world because of the rate it advances with new technology.August 21, 2009 at 3:19 am #32274
Istanbul, AMD 6 core processor 😛FTWbut, Hyperthreading a quad core still hits the mark pretty dang good 🙂August 21, 2009 at 12:45 pm #32275
Istanbul, AMD 6 core processor 😛FTW
Yeah but Istanbul is a Server processor, the Phenom II's are AMD's best Desktop processors being Dual, Triple and Quad Cores.August 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm #32276
You are comparing apples and oranges. Server processors are designed to work in a totally different way to desktop processors. They need to handle many more calculations than a desktop processor, but usually shorter, less demanding calculations. A better comparison to the Istanbul chip would be the also upcoming latest Intel server chip, Nehalem-EX, due out very soon.Nehalem-EX is based on the same architecture as the Core i7 and the Xeon 5500 series, but it's been pumped up to the max. It has eight cores, 16 threads, 24MB shared cache, four memory channels, four QuickPath links, and supports up to 16 memory modules per socket (with the help of memory buffer chips on the motherboard).August 21, 2009 at 7:36 pm #32277
Certainly is interesting stuff, but yeah Server and Desktop processors are totally different that's why I made the point that Instanbul was a server processor when we were talking about Desktop processors. That Intel Server processor looks ace, 4 of those beasts in a server and your laughing ;D.I do wish AMD could make processors just as good as Intel's, but AMD's takeover of ATI in 2006 is what nearly killed AMD and put it behind Intel now because before that AMD was the one wiping the floor with Intel processors. AMD is just short of money simply, you've seen the Graphic Cards ATI were churning out lately which were ahead of Nvidia until the GTX 285 and GTX 295 (Think they are Nvidias latest cards) came out which sort of evened the playing field out or might have slightly turned it in Nvidias favour, which I can only assume is because AMD are directing some big funds towards it's processor division now to try and catch up with Intel a bit now ATI and Nvidia are similar.Others might not see it this way but it makes logical sense to me that this is what might be happening between the companies.As for older technology, I do remember the original Playstation still got it upstairs in my bedroom in fact, I also used to have the old Gameboy Colour (Should be American spelling of "Color" though, Japanese seem to use Americanised English) and an old Sega game console one Game I had was Sonic The Hedgehog (Yeeeaaaah!!!). So I have seen a good deal of development in technology and as I have grown older have read about it more in amazement, the first computer we had was that old comp I mentioned about in another thread on here (Windows 95 Comp, cost Â£1500), then we didn't get a new one until about 2003 (We went on AOL Dialup in 2003 as well when we got the comp with XP on, yeah 56kbps download) which had a 2.6GHz Celeron Processor and 512MB of RAM I think till my Dad put an extra 256MB of RAM in that cost around Â£600, then I got my first laptop a few years later about 2007 that had an Intel Celeron Processor at 1.6GHz and 1MB of L2 Cache and 512MB of RAM this cost around Â£300.So by my example there it shows the transition between Desktop to Laptops, it took 2-3 years just to get that similar Desktop compact to a Laptop size, my laptop now just wipes the floor with them ;D (Nothing compared to the big computer toy Dak has but it's more than enough for my light gaming and tinternet browsing).And I know of a similar saying to that about the Moon, simply put Mobile Phones of today are more powerful than the computers that got man to the, Mobile Phones from earlier in this decade (2000-2003 ish) are similar to the computer power on the mission to the Moon.August 21, 2009 at 7:57 pm #32278
AMD certainly had the edge for a short time when dual cores came into vogue. The Pentium D, though pretty quick ( I have one in the living room ) wasnt as quick as the dual core AMD stuff of the time, and the Pentium D was cobbled together, not a technical advance at all, just an extra Prescott core added to a P4. The result is that it ran incredibly hot, and doesnt have the service life of most processors as a result. AMD were doing it smarter, with lower clock speeds and wider channels, which helped cooling enormously, and helped to keep the price down too. Unfortunately for AMD, they felt a bit too good about it, and stuck with the same technology far too long. Intel moved in a different direction with the Core family, got the jump on AMD, and AMD have been playing catchup ever since, because they took too long to react. AMD policy is pretty good though, they wont make a chip using more than 75 watts, and all AMD chips I have seen run noticably cooler than the equivalent Intel. They have always kept their pricing considerably lower than Intel too. Sadly, they dont have anything even close to equivalent to the i7, they got stranded in the barriers again.I'd like to see AMD take the lead again personally. If Intel had remained the only major CPU manucturer, then we would probably still be stuck with the P4. Competition is a beautiful thing when it comes to the consumer... if AMD could come up with something to rival the i7 fast enough, it will stir Intel into doing some pretty fabulous stuff i think.We live in hope 🙂August 22, 2009 at 8:47 am #32279
My first computer was a VIC 20, then there were apple computers, then IBM…And yes I paid well over $2,000 for a 286 (they were hot) then there was the 386, 486, 586, then we went over the 1Gig…WOW…We are so lucky now… Not only do we have a fantastic choice of hard drives, processors, screens, and more…But it is also dam cheap too…Love it…May 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm #32280
thanksMay 12, 2012 at 5:24 am #32281
HyperThreading was an attempt to do what dual-core is doing. It was only 'faking' it though, whereas dual-core is the real thing. And, in all honesty, HT never did much. Hell, some Windows applications recommended turning it off!.. Basically what Chroot said was correct, and Intel has actual dropped (for now) HT on the new Core models, as dual-cores have been achieved now.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.