Re: HT Benchmarks (was: /proc/cpuinfo and hyperthreading)
Denis Vlasenko (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:03:38 -0200
On 16 December 2002 21:27, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> On 2002.12.17 Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> From what I can see, HT provides a 0-15% increase in performance,
> >heavily on the type of code being run. In other words, HT helps, but
> > it is *no* substitute for true multiple processors. And it is ONLY
> > of value when an SMP kernel is in use.
> What I don't like is that Intel sells it like the best thing since
> sliced bread, and get a money for it, see the price of Xeons compared
> to normal P4s...
What did you expect? They are making processors for money, and have
to push the sales.
As to HT, it's definitely a good thing. Multiple CPUs on a chip is
a logical step. HT in P4 is rather weak, but future processors will
likely have more advanced cores.
I never heard about HT from AMD camp. I'm curious what they do. ;)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/