Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:50:33 +0100 (CET)
From:      Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net>
To:        "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU
Message-ID:  <20060110204341.U13783@chylonia.3miasto.net>
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
> I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took a 
> step back) ... but, is how does it rate?  I know that HyperThreading is 
> definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
>
Dual Core = two physical CPUs, possibly sharing L2 cache.

HyperThreading = double sets of registers, machine states etc... for 
single CPU making it look like 2 CPUs. when one "CPU" has to wait for say 
memory access, it then executes program from other thread.

it means it can be faster than single CPU, but of course much slower than 
2 CPUs. because this strategy make cache data shared and often switched 
between two different threads, it can result slower performance.

the net effect is positive in Intel's tests, but very little positive-to 
little negative in practice like FreeBSD servers.

Many users end in running single-CPU kernel because it actually works 
faster.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060110204341.U13783>