CPU DUAL CORE

[Mosad]

I am pretty much decided on an AMD Athlon 64.. the new one for the socket 939... but i do not want to make a preemeptive jump only to find out that the computing world has, as a whole, suddenly moved to dual core processores and here i am, a brand new owner of a single core cpu...

So in short, i ask you - how future proof am i if i make a move on the new .9 A64s?

By the way, any of you intel fans... i would love to hear from you as well... although my mind is pretty much set, it is because the vast majority of the people i have talked to own amds.

Thank you all

 

[EightySix Four]

S939 will be technically able to support dual core, all though it will be awhile, dual core is mainly going to be server to start... Nothing to worry about dual core wise yet.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

 

[gwag]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

No two processors is about as close as you can get to dual cores, hyperthreading isn't even close. people think hyper thread = 2 processors may intell just needs to stick the work "quad" on top of "rathreading" and get another years worth of sales out of the P4 off fools.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

Originally posted by: gwag

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

No two processors is about as close as you can get to dual cores, hyperthreading isn't even close. people think hyper thread = 2 processors may intell just needs to stick the work "quad" on top of "rathreading" and get another years worth of sales out of the P4 off fools.

Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

Please read some technical documents on hyperthreading before spewing crap like this.

 

[302efi]

Originally posted by: zenwhen

Originally posted by: gwag

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

No two processors is about as close as you can get to dual cores, hyperthreading isn't even close. people think hyper thread = 2 processors may intell just needs to stick the work "quad" on top of "rathreading" and get another years worth of sales out of the P4 off fools.

Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

Please read some technical documents on hyperthreading before spewing crap like this.

HA-HA....gwag=OWNED

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: 302efi

Originally posted by: zenwhen

Originally posted by: gwag

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

No two processors is about as close as you can get to dual cores, hyperthreading isn't even close. people think hyper thread = 2 processors may intell just needs to stick the work "quad" on top of "rathreading" and get another years worth of sales out of the P4 off fools.

Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

Please read some technical documents on hyperthreading before spewing crap like this.

HA-HA....gwag=OWNED

lol

 

[gwag]

Hyperthreading was introduced because Intel saw an inefficiency in the Netburst technology that caused a big portion of the core to sit around waiting for more data much of the time. cause they went cheap they used tiny L1 caches, it has nothing to do with dual cores or two processors. sure it helps multi task better but its hardly the gain of a second core.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: gwag
Hyperthreading was introduced because Intel saw an inefficiency in the Netburst technology that caused a big portion of the core to sit around waiting for more data much of the time. cause they went cheap they used tiny L1 caches, it has nothing to do with dual cores or two processors. sure it helps multi task better but its hardly the gain of a second core.

Thanks for quoting me:

Hyperthreading was made because Intel saw an inefficiency in the Netburst technology that caused a big portion of the core to sit around waiting for more data much of the time.

 

[gwag]

Couldn't help it, such good stuff.

 

[Mosad]

so i take it dual core is not on the near, practical horizon?

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

practical = affordable so no. they won't be in the price range of current cpus for 2-3 years at best

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
HT is as close to dual cores you can get for the moment

You forgot to add "in a mainstream solution" (and thus the noobs all went to work on ya) .

HT really is just a good way to prevent pipeline stalls and the occasional blips that cause lag on single processor computers (ie CPU usage temporarily going to 100% and the system lagging for a second).

When will dual core become worth it? When stuff is optimized for it. When will that be? Well, dual core isn't even out yet, so I'd say a little while yet.

 

[Goi]

HT is what Intel calls SMT. It has been around for a while, and is more of a legitimate microarchitectural feature than a gimmick. Intel just gave it a fancy name.

 

[Sahakiel]

About the only reason anyone bashes HT is because they see it as a way of making up for deficiencies in the Pentium 4 core. They don't realize all processors these days have the same problems, just to different scales. If AMD lost their collective minds for the next three years and implemented HT on the K8, everyone would be bashing them except the most diehard of AMD fans. Improvements would still be noticable, but probably not as cost effective and definitely out of budget for AMD.