Originally posted by: DSET
Im sure eventually Games will take advantage of all four cores
anyone know any rumors on the prices different model etc??
Originally posted by: nyker96
The article made it sound like This Kensfield will be introed before year end, if so, Intel seem to be keeping up its attacks on AMD relentlessly.
Originally posted by: nyker96
The article made it sound like This Kensfield will be introed before year end, if so, Intel seem to be keeping up its attacks on AMD relentlessly.
Originally posted by: Skott
Lets see... I upgrade two PCs to Conroe this year and next year upgrade the third to quad core once they come down in price. Sounds like a plan to me!
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I don't know about everyone else, but I can always use a faster processor. It comes in VERY handy with compression.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Seems the AMD fanboys here have done their best to declare Kentsfield a "waste" because "most" software can't take advantage of 4 cores. They conveniently forget those of us who do advanced 3D rendering, video compression, et al. which can and will make use of every bit of processing power.
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Originally posted by: DSET
Im sure eventually Games will take advantage of all four cores
anyone know any rumors on the prices different model etc??
Yeah in 2010 or so maybe.
Well, that's one. Oh wait, that's two, since Oblivion was written to take advantage of dual-cores. Maybe one of these days, they'll all be SMP-enabled. I just hope it'll be before I get my first octo-cored system.Originally posted by: DSET
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Originally posted by: DSET
Im sure eventually Games will take advantage of all four cores
anyone know any rumors on the prices different model etc??
Yeah in 2010 or so maybe.
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2841&p=2
LOL
hate to say it but I told you so
Originally posted by: tommo123
does the C2D have HT?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: tommo123
does the C2D have HT?
No. HT has died with NetBurst.
Originally posted by: dexvx
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: tommo123
does the C2D have HT?
No. HT has died with NetBurst.
SMT will make its way back soon enough. The wide uarch of Core2 is better suited for SMT than a long narrow pipeline, argueably.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: dexvx
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: tommo123
does the C2D have HT?
No. HT has died with NetBurst.
SMT will make its way back soon enough. The wide uarch of Core2 is better suited for SMT than a long narrow pipeline, argueably.
From Overclockers.com
"Another caveat is that Intel?s acclaimed ?Hyperthreading? feature is for the time being disabled on all current Core 2 Duo processors. Hyperthreading allows running 2 threads per execution core, instead of normally only 1. Intel is mentioning HT capability in their Core 2 Duo documentation and we assume therefore that they will enable it for future versions to keep the product line attractive over its life cycle."
So, we may see HT return in another form within the next few gens. (Guess)
Originally posted by: Duvie
if it is like what it was, and then by all accounts of reviews done by even AT back in the day it will have little or no effect....
with a shorter pipeline versus the netburst architecture there will be less stalls and therefore will negate most of its benefits it had....It was worth 20% in some things in the northwood days....hurt application in multitasking as seen in THG review of a dual core versus the EE version with 4 virtual cores....
Remember when ppl stated that HT for AMD would have had limited to NO benefit.....well I would think C2D architecture would be the same....
It will be more of a PR thing and wont deliver versus its pricetag no doubt....
Originally posted by: dexvx
Originally posted by: Duvie
if it is like what it was, and then by all accounts of reviews done by even AT back in the day it will have little or no effect....
with a shorter pipeline versus the netburst architecture there will be less stalls and therefore will negate most of its benefits it had....It was worth 20% in some things in the northwood days....hurt application in multitasking as seen in THG review of a dual core versus the EE version with 4 virtual cores....
Remember when ppl stated that HT for AMD would have had limited to NO benefit.....well I would think C2D architecture would be the same....
It will be more of a PR thing and wont deliver versus its pricetag no doubt....
Why? It depends on your SMT implementation. The P4's implementation was designed on a long, narrow pipeline. Conroe, is obvious wide and short. Itanium is wide and short and has SMT as well (with rather modest performance gains in the server arena). I believe Sun's 8 core Niagara is narrow AND short, but each can execute 4 threads at a time.
The SMT thing being a coverup for the "highly inefficient" Netburst uarch was just nothing but fanboi spew who knew nothing about the high level concept of SMT. However, to answer your question, I believe SMT works best in Wide+Short. Now the reason why SMT is rare, as mentioned, was that even though it accounted for 5% of the die space, it probably accounted for 90% of the debugging. In AMD's case, it was just far easier to make Dual-Core than go for an SMT implementation. Not to say, I believe an DC-SMT X2 would've held some nice performance gains, especially in the server area. But again, there are time constraints, and its a known fact Intel is a bigger company with far more resources and thus they can waste 90% of their debug time; something AMD can't do easily.
The real question is, is it worth it to debug SMT? It'd be easier to throw native Quad-Core than having a DC-SMT CPU, to my knowledge. However, sooner or later, you're going to run into scalability problems (mainly due to heat dissipation from multiple complex cores on 1 socket), and thats when SMT will be useful on a performance/watt basis.
My .02
Originally posted by: Duvie
However short and wide would not seem to fit that same theory....The pipe is shorter thus delays or hits due to above would not leave must of a stall to get much execution of anything else done....You can fill that wide path but the fact is the cpu should stay relatively busy with the single thread...thus not much of the 2nd thread will get done...hence why I dont think it will be as productive as the P4 netburst HT implementation...
Originally posted by: Duvie
Sun can run 4 threads but if they only have 1 core then you are just slicing up the same pie....unless they were so inefficient keeping the pipe full I dont see how 4 thread on 1 core would be faster then 1 thread on 1 core..
Originally posted by: Duvie
My 2 cnets is based on what I read at the time from the respectable review sites...they were often the ones who commented on the likelihood AMD would implement this and why not....
Unless we are talking about another incarnation of HT (hyperthreading)!!!