my p4 3.4ghz shows 2 cores under task man...

[user3657]

i just built a new server and it dual boots xp and 2003. its a standard mill 3.4ghz p4. both windows shows 2 cores under task man. i thought it just might be a bug, but both "cores" are actually being "stressed" at different times. any ideas? im thinking maybe it is really a p4 D 3.4ghz and was supposed to be locked to one core, but got screwed up.

 

[Stumps]

Hyperthreading FTW...Windows will identify a P4 with it enabled as two seperate logical processors.

 

[Stumps]

I should add that all P4's with Hyperthreading show this and kinda behave like a dual core....kinda

 

[jlbenedict]

You have a Cedar Mill 651.

As Stumps has stated.. its pretty much a "fake" dual core.

 

[f4phantom2500]

yeah; basically hyperthreading just makes windows think that it's 2 cores (because it can handle multiple threads more efficiently than a non-hyperthreaded single core processor....well a non-hyperthreaded single core pentium 4 at least). It's not nearly as good as a real dual core but eh whatever.

 

[user3657]

did not know, thanks!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Gee, user3657, I'm surprised you didn't know about "hyperthreading." And you have to be tech-savvy, building "a server" to dual boot two flavors of MS Os-es.

But things are rushing forward so fast, I can commiserate about the burden of "keeping up." Here, I'm building a dual-core Conroe system, and now there are new versions of the Conroe with which I'm totally unfamiliar -- and then there are the Kentsfield quad-cores.

I was disappointed with HT when the P4 Northwoods first equipped with them appeared, and I jumped from a 2.4C to a 3.0C processor. Articles published in the aftermath of HT's appearance showed benchmarks of only an 11% to 15% improvement due to hyper-threading.

And imagine! From non-HT processors, to HT to dual-core to quad-core in just four years! Meanwhile, a Russian government official says he's still using a 386-based system that Mikhail Gorbachev gave him at the turn of the last decade -- for sentimental reasons.

 

[Blain]

"Articles published in the aftermath of HT's appearance showed benchmarks of only an 11% to 15% improvement due to hyper-threading."

"Only an 11% to 15% improvement"...
What's your beef with a HT P4? They didn't cost near what a dual CPU Xeon setup would have. :shocked:

 

[Herradura]

Would some1 like to tell me what exactly HT does and why it does not ship in C2d's? I can think of one reason and thats because C2d's have such good designthat they wouldnt really need HT because it would at little speed for more cost. Correct me if im wrgon please.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Blain
What's your beef with a HT P4? They didn't cost near what a dual CPU Xeon setup would have.

Umm, they only provided an 11-15% improvement? And that was in the fairly few apps (at that time, of course) that were SMP-enabled. Oh wait, fairly few apps are SMP-ehabled now.

 

[evolucion8]

On initial reviews probably the performance boost was minimal, but today even with games like Quake 4, a Hyper Threaded P4 can run Quake 4 up to 30% FASTER than a non Hyper Threaded P4, a multi threaded app can also see the same 30% boost in performance, of course it's in the best case scenario when the app is really optimized for multi threading. P4 was never designed to be a Dual Core CPU with such small caches and narrow execution engines, but that performance boost it's almost for free.