Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:06:23 +0300 From: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU Message-ID: <cb5206420601101006q7e0fbf55scf42b52f0890dc16@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they too= k > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is > definitely !=3D Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get? There is extensive evidence (google for that, please), that HT is even slower than a single core in quite a few applications. Moreover, the whole HT implementation has been shown to be a security risk. In the near future intel is going to spend $1.9bn on its new marketing campaign. If you wanna be part of it, buy their CPU, half of the money will be in your nearest billboard. Dual-core is a new, and a very smart concept, which is exactly equal to a dual-cpu configuration in terms of performance per core - plus it provides a huge cut down on power consumption, and a theoretically hugely faster interconnection between the cores (they are physically many times closer). By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420601101006q7e0fbf55scf42b52f0890dc16>