Hyper threading

[Astrix]

Is the HT advantage serious enough to not consider A64, if the user tends to run a lot of things simulatenously.

[bottle]

the difference is slight.. or so anandtech benchmarks say ;)

a64 is not that underpowered to come to a screeching halt if you load a few apps at the same time

[Charley]

Hyperthreading is good. Btw if your just running 1 program like encoding, you would see zero difference.

Its all about multitasking

Say if wanted to:

play a 3d game, encode a movie, browse the net
watch tv card, prime95

it can all be done at the same time. which i doubt a64 can it would lag too much!

if you have dual screen setups and run alot of programs, its nice to have hyperthreading.
Hypethreading is a cheap alternative to dual cpus

[Astrix]

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

[babumuchhala]

Having an antivirus SCAN and Burning a CD at same time or using Photoshop is only when HT technology would help. PLUS the software must be tuned to take advantage of HT technology or else its of no use.

Better go for AMD Athlon64

[vasanth_12345]

HT technology doenot offer any performance gain.It didnt even take off

see.u should have software optimized for it otherwise its of no use.Amd64

gives a better performance gain in gaming

[gxsaurav]

it's been a long time HT is out, so about every major softwares is optimized for Hyperthreading

PhotoShop CS, Illustrator CS, NAV 2005, WMP10, Nero 6+, there are many optimised for HT, even there are optimised builds for Firefox optimised for Hyper threading, U will notice benifit clearly, especially when encoding or playing games, although the Athlon64 beats Intel due to good architecture, this doesn't mean that HT is dead, it's really a cheap alternative to Dual CPU, but not perfectly, in most cases it will give u a max of 10% more performance, & with a similerly placed Athlon64 U can get about 20% more performacen compratively

[ravekanth]

Unless ur gonna do some serious gaming n stuff...u'll hardly find any difference between the 64 n a HT..... However... I've seen HT's multi task better.... n software nowadys come optimised for HT's as its an industry standard.......

[daj123]

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.

[dOm1naTOr]

HT is good but there is not enough use of it as U aint gonna play a 3D game while browsing the net or U aint gonna play games while burning a CD.
AMD64 is not so backward for multitasking even if it is not designed for it as speed could alone bring a tremendoes change in the overall prefomance.
What we need is max perfomance for the task we are doing currently.So go for an AMD 64.Sure it rocks!!!

[rachitboom2]

Wel it is just a slight difference when doing multitasking like DVD burning and encoding or Games and Nortan Scan !!! :wink:

[drvarunmehta]

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 :wink:
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 :wink:

[progistheway]

Yea HT pertains to Multitasking. Sometimes when you are running a single app. like encoding a video file you might even see a performance drop as I did. I got slightly better encoding performance when I disabled HT from the BIOS. If you're into gaming go for the AMD 64. They beat the P4 hands down in this one. If you're into Video Editing the P4 would be the better choice (i know through experience). But know that HT does not give you any seious performance gain. It's just the hype that seems to follow all intel products around that has made HT seem like killer stuff. It's definitely not.

[Ashis]

There Is Difference But Coporate Will Notice it better (Server)

[Keith Sebastian]

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

Oye! I've done that on a Celeron 2GHZ with no problems.... why the need
for hyper threads???

[Keith Sebastian]

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 :wink:
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 :wink:

Well said ! I'll second that. We need more people like you on these forums
to educate these tech noobs.

[daj123]

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 :wink:
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 :wink:
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.