1-25-05: 64bit < HT ?

[housecat]

Just curious on peoples opinions on this.

Comparing the features individually, not accounting for the overall processors involved.. just 64bit support versus Hyperthreading.

Which one would you rather have, given the choice? As of 1/25/05.


My personal vote: Hyperthreading. I dont have Hyperthreading, but this is my personal preference. I'd trade 64bit on a A64 for HT, personally. As 64bit is virtually useless at this point, we dont know the future of it really, and HT has a much better display of speeding up TODAYS applications.. not tomorrows.


I'm sure 64bit will win the vote, because theres a ton of brand loyal AMD users here and they hate Intel and their hardware.. but in all honesty I believe this is a false conclusion, based on a false premise (because you happen to own one).

So the backing up of your decision is more important than just seeing the thread and voting.. as most of us know AMD64 "users" (even though they probably arent even using it right now) are clicking on 64bit.

Just my opinion, what is everyone elses?

 

[CheesePoofs]

Hyperthreading does very little for most applications, it actually slows some down. Sure, it improves multitasking performance, but my Athlon xp system is a good enough multitasker for me.

64 bit, on the other hand, will become very usefull in a month or two, when MS releases win xp 64 bit edition. Everything will run faster on that, and in the long run multitasking will also be improved by 64 bit, because you can use much more ram.

 

[sandorski]

64 bit, at least the implementation in the Athlon 64. As Cheese points out, HT is only really beneficial in a few situations, whereas 64bit(using Win 64) is going to open up significant performance increases across the board with the Athlon64. It's a no-brainer.

 

[housecat]

Personally. I wanna see it.

I have yet to see benchmarks produce the results people have been screaming "will be here" when XP64 is out.

I've used XP64 beta AND HT processors, HT is much more usable.. while XP64 beta is crap.

I wanna see benchies showing where in the hell they are going to pull THAT mcuh more performance out of the XP64 final.

I just dont see how it will be done.


edit - and good luck getting everyone to produce and MAINTAIN 64bit drivers concurrently with todays 32bit
we all know how great most hardware companys are at drivers.. they only seem to move when absolutely forced.. and XP64 is nto a "absolute force" situation like the original XP was.


you gotta get dell onboard at the very least to push this thing into popularity, which is required to get the hardware driver support you need

 

[housecat]

then there is the issue that my friend eden brought up, that 64bit speeds up nothing. its the 8 extra registers that speeds things up at all, and that COULD be enabled in 32bit mode. it just so happens to be a integral part of AMD64

needless to say, im disillusioned by the hype.

 

[zakee00]

Hyperthreading. As far as I know, and from what I've read, essentially 64bits just lets you use over 4GB of memory, which is useless in home computing. Hyperthreading speeds up multitasking, which isn't superb on my A64 as far as I am concerned.
Just an oppinion, don't start flaming people....unless I'm wrong about what 64bit actually does

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

if Intel is dropping everything and making a dash for 64bit also, then you know its going to have very large future potential.

 

[housecat]

on the other hand, it takes Intel to give something a large future potential.

but honestly, i dont think intel's acceptance of 64bit means it is a great technology.. it is more becuase they are completely lost, and have no idea what they are doing.

other recent examples of this woudl include the prescott.

 

[Duvie]

I am an amd user, but since I dont have any apps that are 64bit and dont want to run that extremely buggy winsuck64 it is a big waste at this moment. I will likely go through 2 more cpus before I actually will use (still likely will not need) 64bit apps or OS....

HT has benefits now...I voted for it though I likely will never be using it again. Rumors have it that HT will not be enabled on the dual cores and if Intel goes with a shorter pipeline of a Dothan cpu then there is no need or effectiveness of HT....

 

[housecat]

I'm not saying P4 is better than A64, by any means. I'm glad you all see that.

Merely HT compared to 64bit support. I was wondering how many of you saw it the way i did.

 

[sandorski]

64bit is going to be bigger than HT. Like I said in my previous post, the Athlon64 using Win64 will provide much more than HT can, though it's not inherent to 64bit computing the improvement exists nonetheless.

As for 64bit being not needed for Home Compuiting, that'll change rather quickly. Same was said when 32bit was introduced. It won't take long before we're using 4+gb of ram.

 

[stevty2889]

I have dual monitors and do a lot of multitasking so hyperthreading has been very useful to me. Of course now you can have both, the the P4 F's that are EM64T enabled and have hyperthreading, but right now I really see no use for the 64bit. Dual core will be more effeciant at multitasking than hyperthreading, so it's extremely likely the dual core A64's will dominate over Intel since they are already better at most 32bit applications, and will also gain good multitasking abilities.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
I have dual monitors and do a lot of multitasking so hyperthreading has been very useful to me. Of course now you can have both, the the P4 F's that are EM64T enabled and have hyperthreading, but right now I really see no use for the 64bit. Dual core will be more effeciant at multitasking than hyperthreading, so it's extremely likely the dual core A64's will dominate over Intel since they are already better at most 32bit applications, and will also gain good multitasking abilities.

That all depends on what Intel uses for their dual core processors.


Dual core P4M (Centrino) with onboard mem controller, HT and EMT64 (for those that think this is some kind of useful feature).. and I think you've got even a dual core A64 killer.

Thats of course a even better, tweaked out P4M.. but I like that processor a lot. Its like an Athlon.

But that setup would be very quick, and use very little power/output little heat.

What all P4s really need is that onboard mem controller, and I think they would rape.

and on the other hand, i think an Athlon64 with HT would rape as well.

Either way, you are adding the best of either world to the other for a so called super processor.



The execution units of the A64 sit idle most of the time, and HT would put those to great use. and HT hungers for exec units (which A64 has in spades, 9 i think). and a shorter pipeline should help HT, as it would be flushed much faster on a incorrect prediction.

 

[Megatomic]

How great can hyperthreading be if Intel is dropping it on future cores? IMO it was a stopgap feature brought about to fix the performance defecit that was hurting Pentium 4 chips compared to Athlon chips. It worked pretty well for sure, but Intel is not incorporating it into the dual core chips coming out later this year nor is it used in the Dothan chips.

I vote for 64bit as it is the wave of the future.

 

[housecat]

That really wasnt the question (if it was the wave of the future), so minus 1 from the 64bit votes.




And no one knows if they are dropping it for sure or not. But I think the results are the truth, HT works and has results. 64bit has yet to prove itself, just because its hyped as "the future" does not mean it will deliver.

As far as comparing these two features, HT is useful today, 64bit is not. I'm trying to steer this AWAY from intel vs AMD and towards 64bit vs HT.


64bit is IMO a minor feature that will be important many years ahead, when consumer level hardware requires 4+gb of RAM. The performance addition from 64bit (that is not really seen in XP64), does not come from the 64bit function at all, but from the additional registers.. something AMD probably added as a "stopgap" (as you put it) to make their 64bit chip (when useful) to appear SOMEWHAT of a good idea for the average user.

 

[Jeff7181]

The poll is stupid... it shows your own bias. If you want to make a valid poll, just put 64-bit vs. HT and leave your biased statements out.

 

[Geomagick]

Hyperthreading just makes way for multi core CPUs. We'll see these in the next year from both Intel and AMD, as for 64 bit think about higher numbers - they always sell. It happens in consoles my blah blah blah is better than your blah blah - lower number inserted.

I know what the benefits are for 64 bit in the really long term but now I truly believe that HT offers more benefits to more users. As it is I am currently using an A64 because it offers better performance in the 32 bit apps that I use. Not because it offers 64 possibilities.

 

[1stoff]

Originally posted by: housecat
That really wasnt the question (if it was the wave of the future), so minus 1 from the 64bit votes.




And no one knows if they are dropping it for sure or not. But I think the results are the truth, HT works and has results. 64bit has yet to prove itself, just because its hyped as "the future" does not mean it will deliver.

As far as comparing these two features, HT is useful today, 64bit is not. I'm trying to steer this AWAY from intel vs AMD and towards 64bit vs HT.


64bit is IMO a minor feature that will be important many years ahead, when consumer level hardware requires 4+gb of RAM. The performance addition from 64bit (that is not really seen in XP64), does not come from the 64bit function at all, but from the additional registers.. something AMD probably added as a "stopgap" (as you put it) to make their 64bit chip (when useful) to appear SOMEWHAT of a good idea for the average user.

what a load of it, intel ARE dropping HT in desktop dual core also it will NEVER be enabled in the notebook (Dothan/centrino architecture) because it is not a design feature

also what about the hundreds of thousands of ppl using AMD A64 with Linux, or does that not count !!!

this thread is a total joke posted for the benefit of insecure intel fanboys

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: George Powell
Hyperthreading just makes way for multi core CPUs. We'll see these in the next year from both Intel and AMD, as for 64 bit think about higher numbers - they always sell. It happens in consoles my blah blah blah is better than your blah blah - lower number inserted.

I know what the benefits are for 64 bit in the really long term but now I truly believe that HT offers more benefits to more users. As it is I am currently using an A64 because it offers better performance in the 32 bit apps that I use. Not because it offers 64 possibilities.

EXACTLY.






The rest of you guys are completely wrong, I prefer the A64. i use a AXP. I just came to this revelation that HT is better than 64bit.. after cutting through all the hype, and learning about the actual technology you'll learn as well.

Or just continue believing AMD is infallible because they are "underground" and "l33t". :roll:


But none of you know if the next Pentium will have HT or not! If they decide to go with the P4M, why couldnt they have added HT? Do you know they didnt add HT, or arent right now?
No, you dont because none of us work at Intel.. and if you do, please stand up.


In any case, it doesnt matter.. as HT would be a useful addition to whatever implementation they produce next. It would be useful on the A64.

Dual core= more room to put more threads. Its just even MORE efficient in multitasking.



Boy, the day an openminded person who USES AMD is accused of covering up for "insecure intel fanboys" is kind of the day the AMD fanboys are revealed in their pale white, naked skin for the world to see!

I pretty much said in the OP that the AMD crowd would be furious.. no one can mock their precious A64 (ya right).

There is no bias in my poll answers. Tell me what part in those answers is NOT true?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: housecat

That all depends on what Intel uses for their dual core processors.


Dual core pb]P4M (Centrino) with onboard mem controller, HT and EMT64 [/b](for those that think this is some kind of useful feature).. and I think you've got even a dual core A64 killer.

Thats of course a even better, tweaked out P4M.. but I like that processor a lot. Its like an Athlon.

But that setup would be very quick, and use very little power/output little heat.

What all P4s really need is that onboard mem controller, and I think they would rape.

and on the other hand, i think an Athlon64 with HT would rape as well.

Either way, you are adding the best of either world to the other for a so called super processor.



The execution units of the A64 sit idle most of the time, and HT would put those to great use. and HT hungers for exec units (which A64 has in spades, 9 i think). and a shorter pipeline should help HT, as it would be flushed much faster on a incorrect prediction.

1. Centrino is just a combined chipset/proc name for a PIII with a wireless wnabled chip. itis impossible to put any of those features on that chip.

2.even wih memory controller, the p4 still cant process as many ipc as AMd64 so it wont be faster.(notice now centrinos outperform P4s by a wide margin ex.2.0.vs3.0ghz

HTT slows things down for me in games and i dont multitask much at hoem. for end users 64bit all the way. we will need it sooner or later and once XP64 has the bugs worked out, im sure it'll be fine(give MS a break, it's their first 64bit platform). might as well embrace it now.

As for workstations/servers, HTT is much more important. I dont think i could do CAD/CAM while compling without a performance hit without HTT.

 

[gwag]

pretty sure I will make it the next 10 years without using hyperthreading? cant say the same about 64bit. " I dont think i could do CAD/CAM while compling without a performance hit without HTT." pretty sure you can't do CAD/CAM while compling without a performance hit period silly. "As for workstations/servers, HTT is much more important." most of the workstations and servers i work on have 2 real processors so HTT is useless. "and a shorter pipeline should help HT" nope silly again nice try though-
"

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: housecat

Originally posted by: George Powell
Hyperthreading just makes way for multi core CPUs. We'll see these in the next year from both Intel and AMD, as for 64 bit think about higher numbers - they always sell. It happens in consoles my blah blah blah is better than your blah blah - lower number inserted.

I know what the benefits are for 64 bit in the really long term but now I truly believe that HT offers more benefits to more users. As it is I am currently using an A64 because it offers better performance in the 32 bit apps that I use. Not because it offers 64 possibilities.

EXACTLY.






The rest of you guys are completely wrong, I prefer the A64. i use a AXP. I just came to this revelation that HT is better than 64bit.. after cutting through all the hype, and learning about the actual technology you'll learn as well.

Or just continue believing AMD is infallible because they are "underground" and "l33t". :roll:


But none of you know if the next Pentium will have HT or not! If they decide to go with the P4M, why couldnt they have added HT? Do you know they didnt add HT, or arent right now?
No, you dont because none of us work at Intel.. and if you do, please stand up.


In any case, it doesnt matter.. as HT would be a useful addition to whatever implementation they produce next. It would be useful on the A64.

Dual core= more room to put more threads. Its just even MORE efficient in multitasking.



Boy, the day an openminded person who USES AMD is accused of covering up for "insecure intel fanboys" is kind of the day the AMD fanboys are revealed in their pale white, naked skin for the world to see!

I pretty much said in the OP that the AMD crowd would be furious.. no one can mock their precious A64 (ya right).

There is no bias in my poll answers. Tell me what part in those answers is NOT true?

Looks like you didn't do enough reading.

The only reason Hypter-Threading works for Pentium 4's is because of the Netburst architecture. It's inefficient when compared to a shorter pipeline. HT tries to make up for that inefficiency by allowing multiple threads to be run at the same time, keeping the pipeline full.

A64's wouldn't benefit from that because the architecture is more efficient... same goes for the Pentium M.


As for your bias... if you can't see how the thread title and both of the answers in your poll are biased, it's not within my ability to explain it to you. All I can suggest is that you look up the definition of bias.

 

[1stoff]

it seems to me that the thread starter is either very misinformed, has not done any research, or is a total n00b

dont make statements that you know absolutely nothing about, also as to workstations needing HT, have you ever used a workstation, most to my knowledge are dualies, though two CPU's with HT are available i think but not as P4's

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: 1stoff
it seems to me that the thread starter is either very misinformed, has not done any research, or is a total n00b

dont make statements that you know absolutely nothing about, also as to workstations needing HT, have you ever used a workstation, most to my knowledge are dualies, though two CPU's with HT are available i think but not as P4's

Well at least he has a grasp on what 64-bit technology really is and understands that it's not the processors "64-bitness" that makes it faster, but a combination of the on die memory controller, the extra GPR's, as well as some improvments to the pipeline and branch predictor and whatnot.

What I don't like about the poll is how he states his opinion as fact, and brings Windows into the discussion as a reason why 64-bit processors are worse than Hyper-Threading.

 

[iversonyin]

As of today, I would pick 64bit.

Why?

HT has proven useful in multitaskin, BUT 64bit is not WAYYY behind in term of multitasking. I also read somewhere that no application is written to complement with HT. Much like 64bit need 64 OS, HT need HT written application (none exist as i know of, you can of course, prove me wrong). And when you talking about buying a hardware, you really not buying it for today, you are investing one for the future. (ei:AXP and older P4 is more then sufficient to run modern day application, yet people are buying A64 and LGA775 P4)

If there is any indictication that HT will be the future, and not 64bit, I think AMD would be smart enough to jump in.

Your poll is a little bias. "64bit is virtually useless today"-thats your opinion and opinion is bias?

You could've just left it as 64 bit and HT.