Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:12:24 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU Message-ID: <20060111191224.A93090@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org>; from scrappy@hub.org on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400 References: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400: > > 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? It is the real thing, at least when it comes to AMD64 and Netburst-based Intel dual-cores. Every core has a full set of own caches just like dual CPU. Yonah (dual-core Pentium-M) has a shared L2 cache. I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939 socket systems against dual 940 socket systems here: http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html In practice, if you compare socket 939 dual-core and 940 dual-CPU there is a little more. In highend mainboard a dual 940 board will have one memory bank per CPU (which is pretty useless performance-wise for general-purpose applications). Socket 939 systems can have faster RAM (a little less useless) but are limited to 4 GB and there is some BWCing to get ECC. CPUs are limited to 2.6 GHz with the FX-60. Socket 940 single-core CPUs can be had up to 2.8 GHz. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060111191224.A93090>