daj123 said:Stop bashing HT! HT is a technology which was being used in servers far before it came to desktops and currently only Intel offers it. My experience with HT has been marvellous! I have 3 machines:
1. P4 2.8GHz HT 800MHz FSB Northwood
2. P3 450MHz 133MHz FSB
3. Pentium-m 1.6GHz centrino
The top performer as expected is my HT machine. It is extremely responsive while running multiple applications. I always run it in the Linux environment which is designed for server class hardware and so it takes the advantage of my HT while WinXP which is optimized for a P3s ( yes that sucks ) doesnt. I recently installed Windows Server 2003 and the difference between the performance of WinXP and Win server is tremendous. XP takes about 30 seconds to boot up while Win 2k3 takes up only about 10 seconds. Also, after logging in the system is fully ready unlike WinXP which takes sometime to become fully responsive. Linux is even more responsive. Imagine running all kinds of daemons, burning cds, indexing your harddrive, playing mp3s and it all shows up hardly on the CPU usage meter. So HT is no gimmick. It's for real.
While comparing to AMD64, HT does have an advantage. But if you were to run optimized apps for AMD64 then it would even out the competition.
Astrix said:anti-virus
firewall
photoshop
shareaza
firefox
thunderbird
trillian pro
perhaps burn a cd...
you get the idea
if this is what it's going to be like, would you prefer Intel HT over AMD A64
drvarunmehta said:daj123 said:Stop bashing HT! HT is a technology which was being used in servers far before it came to desktops and currently only Intel offers it. My experience with HT has been marvellous! I have 3 machines:
1. P4 2.8GHz HT 800MHz FSB Northwood
2. P3 450MHz 133MHz FSB
3. Pentium-m 1.6GHz centrino
The top performer as expected is my HT machine. It is extremely responsive while running multiple applications. I always run it in the Linux environment which is designed for server class hardware and so it takes the advantage of my HT while WinXP which is optimized for a P3s ( yes that sucks ) doesnt. I recently installed Windows Server 2003 and the difference between the performance of WinXP and Win server is tremendous. XP takes about 30 seconds to boot up while Win 2k3 takes up only about 10 seconds. Also, after logging in the system is fully ready unlike WinXP which takes sometime to become fully responsive. Linux is even more responsive. Imagine running all kinds of daemons, burning cds, indexing your harddrive, playing mp3s and it all shows up hardly on the CPU usage meter. So HT is no gimmick. It's for real.
While comparing to AMD64, HT does have an advantage. But if you were to run optimized apps for AMD64 then it would even out the competition.
ROTFLMAO
Obviously the 2.8 GHz HT will be your 'Top Performer'
Your next fastest machine is a whole 1.2 GHz slower and the P3 is 6 times slower.
The Athlon FX-55 runs at 2.6 GHz and dosen't use any of that sissy HT stuff. To post the kind of numbers the FX-55 would rack up in any benchmark versus a intel proccy running at a comparable rate would be downright embarassing for intel
Before you defend HT so much atleast compare it against a similar offering from AMD and see the difference.
Sell all your PC's and use the money to buy a Athlon 64 series proccy or better yet a FX-55
If you care to understand architectures then you would understand that you can fit more instructions per clock cycle and have a slower gigahertz OR you can have higher gigahertz and fit less instructions per clock cycle. BUT you cant have both. Intel has chosen the latter for its pentium offerings while it has chosen the prior for its mobile offerings. So dont compare clock speeds of Intel and AMD because you would be a total idiot to do that :roll: Go learn a few things about CPU architectures before you start bashing Intel.drvarunmehta said:ROTFLMAO
Obviously the 2.8 GHz HT will be your 'Top Performer'
Your next fastest machine is a whole 1.2 GHz slower and the P3 is 6 times slower.
The Athlon FX-55 runs at 2.6 GHz and dosen't use any of that sissy HT stuff. To post the kind of numbers the FX-55 would rack up in any benchmark versus a intel proccy running at a comparable rate would be downright embarassing for intel
Before you defend HT so much atleast compare it against a similar offering from AMD and see the difference.
Sell all your PC's and use the money to buy a Athlon 64 series proccy or better yet a FX-55