From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 00:12:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6107816A420 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:12:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C626843D6B for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:12:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper [212.12.50.230]) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0C0CP5f093299; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:12:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9/Submit) id k0C0CP68093298; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:12:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cracauer) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:12:24 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20060111191224.A93090@cons.org> References: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org>; from scrappy@hub.org on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:12:29 -0000 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 http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/