Does AMD have a version of HyperThreading

[JeffCos]

I didn't want to waste the thread space with a simple yes or no question. Since I know someone here knows the answer I put it here. What does AMD call their HyperThreading if they have it?

 

[mrwizer]

No, they do not have any SMT.

 

[JeffCos]

Your avatar fits that answer.

 

[BlackMountainCow]

Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

with both intel and amd doing this, why compare apples to oranges?

ht was only meant to add performance to single core chips, a nice addition as well as free performance gains over stock cores.

I assume intel won't be including ht on the dual cores it manufactors?

LOL you crack me up MDE :beer:

Mike

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Wolfsraider

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

with both intel and amd doing this, why compare apples to oranges?

ht was only meant to add performance to single core chips, a nice addition as well as free performance gains over stock cores.

I assume intel won't be including ht on the dual cores it manufactors?

LOL you crack me up MDE :beer:

Mike

HT will only be in the XE (Extreme Edition) chips from now on.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Wolfsraider

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

with both intel and amd doing this, why compare apples to oranges?

ht was only meant to add performance to single core chips, a nice addition as well as free performance gains over stock cores.

I assume intel won't be including ht on the dual cores it manufactors?

LOL you crack me up MDE :beer:

Mike

Hyperthreading was actually made to make up for architectual problems in netburst designs specifically cache misses, which are particularily bad due to long pipeline and a latency. Basically a fix for a problem instead of a nice new bonus feature.

 

[JeffCos]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

That's perfect. I'll probably be looking to upgrade about this time next year. Because my current box was my first build i wasn't looking to OC, but next time it's definite.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Wolfsraider

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Some people get confused with AMD Hyper Transport protocoll to address the bus of the system, 'cause they also abreviate it as HT, but is has nothing to do with a two logical CPUs as Intel's HT does.

:beer:

Yep, AMD doesn't have anything resembling HyperThreading on any of their production chips although they are implementing dual cores a little later on this year which will kick HyperThreading's teeth in.

with both intel and amd doing this, why compare apples to oranges?

ht was only meant to add performance to single core chips, a nice addition as well as free performance gains over stock cores.

I assume intel won't be including ht on the dual cores it manufactors?

LOL you crack me up MDE :beer:

Mike

Hyperthreading was actually made to make up for architectual problems in netburst designs specifically cache misses, which are particularily bad due to long pipeline and a latency. Basically a fix for a problem instead of a nice new bonus feature.

I agree, But it was a nice new bonus feature to us crunchers, and video buffs, etc...

Guess my next build will be an " Extreme" one then.

The Dual Xeon 2.8 I am running is definately a power house thanks to ht as well.

Result ID Claimed credit
2688551...81.08...101074
2737567...74.97...101046
2737571...74.97...101046
2744486...81.96...101074
2756038...63.08...101026
2757175...76.48...101076
2757372...63.95...101026
2757946...63.37...101026
2759959...75.10...101046
2762373...82.02...101074
2771424...61.95...101026
2773295...76.49...101076
2774971...76.65...101076
2777196...59.83...101026
2787059...74.79...101046
2801727...76.77...101076

Computer 1...101026 dual 2,8 xeon ht
computer 2...101046 3.0e ht
computer 3...101074 3.2e ht
computer 4...101076 2,8b no ht

2.8b no ht
76.48
76.49
76.65
76.77
______Total (just dropped)
306.39

3.0e ht
74.97
74.97
75.10
74.79
78.01
75.10 (just dropped)
______Total
383.12

3.2e ht
81.08
81.96
82.02
80.85 (2 wu near completion 90%+ range)
______Total
325.91

dual xeon 2.8 ht
59.83
63.08
63.95
63.37
61.95
86.88
76.98
62.96
______Total (2 wu near completion 70% range)
541.00

_____Total
1556.42

So yeah I think its a bonus, not bad for 4 computers lol
EDIT>also added results turned in over the last day<end edit