Solved: Need Advice: HT vs Dual Core

Which is faster?

  • Dual Core

    Votes: 12 63.2%
  • HyperThreading

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • Total voters
    19
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

junialum

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
90
Hi all!

I need some advice here. I'm going to purchase a computer within the next 6 months and I'm choosing between a P4 3.2 Ghz (HT) and a P4 2.8 Dual Core.

Without taking into consideration the difference in speed (3.2 vs 2.8) will the Dual Core outdo HT?

It'll be great if anyone can explain the differences!

TIA
 

JohnWill

Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
106,418
The HT processor has some dual paths, the dual core is two independent processors in one package. Obviously, you'll need a MB that supports the dual core, but I'd suspect that for multi-tasking, it would be the better choice. FWIW, I have a P4 3.2ghz with HT, and it does outperform a standard processor in many cases.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
355
dont bother with intel cpus for desktops, go amd! and amd's dual core cpus can be run on regular amd motherboards!
 

pugmug

Banned
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
2,857
The amd vs intel debate rages on,lol.What will the computer be used for?
 

junialum

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
90
Thanks for your replies!

pugmug: The computer will be used for almost everything really. Gaming, work, graphics designing and video editing.

1 more thing abt the HT vs Dual Core thing. The HT gives a virtual second core right? Wouldn't a dual core (that gives a real second core) outperform the HT?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,756
Hyperthreading gives the CPU two sets of registers and makes it appear as two CPUs to the operating system, however there is still only one CPU doing all the work. A dual-core P4 still has hyperthreading and should appear as four CPUs. Unless Intel make a P4-D without hyperthreading, just to confuse us all ;)

FWIW, hyperthreading has very little effect on performance.
 

junialum

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
90
Thanks Arcadion, what I was comparing was a P4 HT with a P4-D (Dual core without HT). Which one would be faster?
 
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
423
well in my experience my Intel P4 3.2ghz HT works great. performace wise i don't think you will see much difference between the two, when using it for gaming and regular stuff. Although the science of it tells me that the P4-D will work faster just because the data will be streamed into two simultaneos busses, thus spreading the work load onto the two processors. Of course this needs to be configured to designate certain tasks to be sent to the second processor to optimize design. ram should be an area of concern as well. are you going to build it or buying it pre-assembled?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,756
Windows XP (and NT4 and 2000) automatically divides programs up between multiple processors when they run, you can set which program runs on which processor if you want to via the process manager.
 
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
423
actualy by default windows xp 2k and NT4.0 don't devide the programs themselves but the workload and the priority of interrupts. you can have a dually and still bog down only one processor while the second runs on at less than 20 percent. Windows mearly sends the work load, a whole programs process to one processor, when you can divide the heavy processes between the processors manualy is what i'm saying. The whole point behind the HT technology. although you can do this with an HT aswell, that's why I made the statement about the science of synchronized bus paths would be tachnicaly faster. The technique I am refering to is adjusting the processor threads. Open up the task manager in your computer click the performance tab and you will see what i'm talking about.
 
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
423
anyone have a defense on amd that i can run circles around? AMD got popular in the gamers world back in the day because the truly were the best cpu's to overclock. Now every cpu comes off the factory line at it's maximum safe clock speed. Overclockig is, for the most part, a thing of the past. Intel so far has, I mean owns, the best processor technology today. I have yet to see an AMD cpu that matches the latest Intel. Any one beg to differ?
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
62
Intel has the better technology? Uh, AMD currently makes the fastest single-core processor money can buy. So I guess you're right - I too have yet to see an AMD CPU that matches the latest Intel -- because the latest AMD has beaten the latest Intel.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456

Intel's dual core CPUs are also less stable and use more power than AMD's. AMD dual core CPUs beat Intel's in a majority of benchmarks. And, while AMD's dual core chips can go in current socket 939 motherboards, if you want to upgrade to an Intel dual core, you'll also have to get a new mobo.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/index.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-20.html

Overclocking is dead, you say? Uhh....wrong again. AMD's dual core CPUs apparently overclock very well.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=7

Run circles around that, debunkcia.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
1,695
obvious said:
dont bother with intel cpus for desktops, go amd!
so says one that owns one :D I believe AMD is slightly ahead in that race & I'm running a P4.

dual core would be faster.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
355
debunkcia said:
anyone have a defense on amd that i can run circles around? AMD got popular in the gamers world back in the day because the truly were the best cpu's to overclock. Now every cpu comes off the factory line at it's maximum safe clock speed. Overclockig is, for the most part, a thing of the past. Intel so far has, I mean owns, the best processor technology today. I have yet to see an AMD cpu that matches the latest Intel. Any one beg to differ?

utter madness. a good friend of mine bought an amd cpu only recently (i.e. weeks ago) and it overclocked incredibly well! it's just potluck if you'll get a good overclocker!

also, the intel dual core cpus are VERY ineficient (even when compared to a presscott p4, which is already very ineficient)therefore making the intel dual core insanely inneficient. just go for an amd athlon64 X2 (that's the dual core cpus name :rolleyes: )
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top