Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Dual Core vs Hyperthread Technology

Jul 31, 2005 7:00AM PDT

I'm looking to config a new PC from Dell and wanted to understand the difference between dual core and hyperthreading technology in the Pentium processors.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
lets see in simple explanation
Jul 31, 2005 9:19AM PDT

dual core - that is a cpu with two physical cores

hyper threading - that is one cpu with one core but acts to the operating system that it has two cores, multitasking based.

dual core is the future as games and more programs take the power of the cores into use. there is also already a flying game out for dual core, its been out about a month or two which utilizes dual core, and i can say, the graphics looked beautiful as two cpu cores working on the same game doing different things in the game help alot.

konny

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) "Virtually" two cores with HyperThreading
Aug 1, 2005 8:56PM PDT
- Collapse -
Dual v hyper
Aug 4, 2005 3:39AM PDT

Hyperthreding "splits" you CPU into 2 virutal cpus. What it really does is it divides the resources mre efficiently and appears to XP as two cores. If you wanted to surf the web at high speed and rip MP3, you could do that. However, if you present it with, let's say, MP3 and games, it doesn't give you much benefit because it is two floating-point applications.

Dual core fixes that by having 2 actual cores. So it elimates the problem that hyperthreading runs into.

However, do not confuse this with Hypertransport. That is totally different technology by AMD. It allows a 533 MB/S link between the Northbridge and Southbridge.

As for your next computer, try looking at eMachines instead of Dell. PCWorld rated them #1.

- Collapse -
What will be after Dual-Core?
Aug 16, 2005 2:35AM PDT

Will there be tri-core? quad-core? penta-core? What do you guys think will come next!!?

- Collapse -
eh, depends
Aug 16, 2005 10:54AM PDT

xbox will have a three cored cpu, but desktop pc's cpus are more powerful (go figure).

silicon has just about reached it's limits as far as heat and electricity are concerned.

matter of fact, i really don't know what is coming...

konny

- Collapse -
RE:
Aug 16, 2005 11:36AM PDT

It'll be a while till they stop shrinking the chips and cramming as much transistors as possible

- Collapse -
i heard
Aug 16, 2005 9:57PM PDT

by the end of the decade(2010), we will have 2nm process. AMD talks quad core in 2007.

- Collapse -
perhaps, but there's bound to be a brick wall to run into...
Aug 19, 2005 10:13AM PDT

They can keep cramming the components closer and closer together, but yeah, heating/cooling will be a big issue eventually. There's still room in R&D to develop even more effecient and better chipsets... i guess like the Centrinos which only generate 40% the heat of a Pentium 4 M processor

- Collapse -
Re
Aug 18, 2005 11:49PM PDT

My bet would be on Cell, or some varient of. The idea behind Cell is very sound, and if it delivers what they are promissing for the PS3, I would not be suprised if the design was adopted by AMD and Intel for PC use.

- Collapse -
Heat...
Aug 19, 2005 7:28AM PDT

I think damaster is right, soon they will stop just making faster chips. There will be a threshold where you just can't go any faster without cooling off. I think Intel is getting close to the threshold with the Pentium 4 3.8. So, soon they might be devoloping technologies to chill out.

- Collapse -
couldn't they just put the Centrino in desktops?
Aug 19, 2005 10:15AM PDT

One advantage of that over Pentium 3/4 M processors is that it generates about 40% of the heat of the other. Couldn't they adapt that feature for desktop architecture?

- Collapse -
cooling
Aug 19, 2005 11:43AM PDT

I agree that Intel and AMD should look for new ways to cool off these processors, which can go extremely extremely hot. Water cooling is the way, I think... I have just a quick question. Intel has a processor clocked at 3.2 GHz, but the FX-57, which clock is just a little lower beats it by leaps and bounds. How is that possible??? How can a 2.5 AMD wipe the nose of a 3.0Ghz?? I've looked at these benchmarks and, IMO, AMD is winning... Intel is making a new processor I hear, somewhere in the news, or that they are adding alot of things to P4. Maybe a way to have less heat and more perfromance? Centrino's.... I have a bit of an anaolgy, which is why I think it, may not be true tho.... Think of the Centrino as a Hybrid car and think the Pentium as the hummer. The hybrid is generates less heat, but if offered a choice I think people, just because of the "muscle" factor they would pick the Hummer (P4). Also, I don't think that these Centrino's clock very high. The highest I've seen was a 2.13.... But I don't look much into those processors...
-Ibrahim

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Conroe is on its way...
Aug 19, 2005 12:47PM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Conroe?
Aug 20, 2005 9:12AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE:
Aug 20, 2005 10:16AM PDT

To replace Pentium D 900 which hasnt been released yet, which replaces pentium d 8xx Smithfield. Presler 9xx, will support vt tech. Conroe to replace presler is based on menrom, which is set to replace yonah, which will be released soon to replace sonoma Pentium M. Conroe will be the first chip that doesn;t incorporate netburst, i think.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'm confused
Aug 20, 2005 12:47PM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I second that
Aug 21, 2005 1:00AM PDT
- Collapse -
Simpler terms
Aug 21, 2005 3:25AM PDT

Current pentium D are 8xx series (smithfield core)
Next gen Pentium D=9xx series (presler core)
ReplaCING PENTIUM D 9XX series (conroe series)

Current Pentium M (Sonoma)
Next gen Pentium M (Yonah)
Next next gen (Menrom)


Presler will encorporate virtualization technology and be 65nm. Yonah will be first dual-core for pentium M and also 65nm. Menrom will follow yonah, conroe will be based on menrom. There are other cores slated by intel, cedar mill for single core Pentium 4, 65nm.

- Collapse -
The "Megahertz Myth" is one explanation to why .............
Aug 21, 2005 5:47AM PDT

......... to why clockspeed isn't everything when comparing processors. You'll need QuickTime to view these vid clips. This is Apple's explanation why one of Apple's 800MHz processor can outperform one of Intel's 1.8GHz processor

http://lowendmac.com/scope/03/0319.html
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/mhz_myth_320f.mov

As for AMD vs Intel, there are other things to consider for processors as well as pipelines mentioned in the above comparison. There's also clock cycles, amount of L1/L2 cache, instructions per cycle, Front Side Bus speeds, etc. Because of all these attributes/components that make up a processor, there really isn't a "super processor" that does every type of task the fastest/best performance.
In fact, the general consensus for the time being is that Intel processors are better for ppl who do ALOT of multitasking on their PC as well as video editting/encoding procedures while AMD is better for games or just budget consumers (those who won't use their PC for Intel's processors' pros over AMD can get an AMD proc for cheaper with the same end result)

This and more are the reasons Y clockspeed isn't relevant anymore.
1) For a given range of tasks, AMD processors can achieve that same performance at a lower clockspeed.
illustrative e.g. AMD was (and still does to some extent) Athlon 2400. THe "2400" was a naming scheme to let consumers know (among other reasons for this naming scheme) that while the Athlon 2400 ran about 2.0GHz, it was on par with a P4 2.4GHz processor
2) Intel used to be able to tout they have higher clockspeeds. They now have to retract and correct that marketing move. Their new laptop processor Centrino has much better architecture than the P4 Mobiles. A 1.6GHz Centrino has better networking, is cooler, but is also on par if not above a P4 2.4GHz mobile processor. They want ppl buying the newer, better, more expensive Centrinos and selling soley on clockspeeds will only hurt them here.

PS
Processors aren't the only components to share this ideal. In automobiles, a 8 cylinder engine isn't necessarily better than an 6 cylinder engine. For video cards, more RAM isn't the only factor.

For vid cards, buyers need to consider pipelines, bandwidths, speed of RAM, how well it handles stuff like openGL, what version of DirectX does it supports, what graphic methods are available (alpha blending, aliasing, etc.). If none of these ring a bell, then ask around, use benchmarking scores and/or conclusions from editorial reviews to make your decision w/o having to learn in depth about vid card hardware. One point to consider is there are some 64MB vid cards that actually outperform a 128MB vid card. Another point to consider is you don't want to pay $400 for a 256MB vid card when you're only gonna get marginal performance boost compared to a $200 128MB vid card.

- Collapse -
some Cnet comments and from other sources too.....
Aug 19, 2005 10:23AM PDT

HT (in this post is "hyperthreading", NOT hypertransport) isn't 2 processors in one. HT means that some apps and OSes that support it will yield better performance boosts due to more efficient use of the processor to work on multiple similar tasks better. It is *NOT* 2 processors since typical max performance gain is roughly 30%.... farcry fom 100% as the "virtual 2 proc" may suggest. Cnet articles also pointed out that in some rare cases, HT may actually decrease overall performance, but such decrease wouldn't be too large.

As for dual core (DC), I'm sure u won't always have 200% performance compared to today's 1 core, but I'd like to think u'd get 20% to 50% boost even if apps weren't written to take advantage of that feature. For apps that do.... boo yah! Only con on DC i can speculate is the OS and PC needs to make sure there's no conflicts in data manipulation. Whereas 1 core it's not an issue, with DC, u need to make sure processor doesn't access some piece of data while another process is writing to it or vice versa. That'll lead to data corruption

- Collapse -
Dual Core vs Hyperthreading?
Aug 21, 2005 12:57AM PDT

Dual Core means there are two physical processors that may do work on your computer at the same time (that's in parallel). Hyperthreading in a single core means, when a processor is in a wait state, say for a packet to be delivered, it could do something else, ie. work on another thread (hyperthreading), while it is waiting for the packet. It's a method of taking full advantage of the processors capability. Hope this helps. -NMHUCOWBOY

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) ok, how about using hyperthreading with dual core?
Aug 21, 2005 2:18AM PDT