Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 30

Thread: The opposite of hyperthreading

  1. #1
    handscombmp
    Guest

    The opposite of hyperthreading

    Now i know tat the new i7's have hyperthreading again but what i reckon would be more useful was if you had the opposite.
    So instead of the pc seeing it as 4 x 3Ghz cores it saw it as 2 x 6Ghz as with not a large amount of apps using 4 cores yet surely it would make more sense.
    Now i know there's probaly something on why you can't (otherwise i'm sure intel/amd would have already done it), but what do you think of it?
    Or am i just being stupid
    Last edited by handscombmp; 30-04-2009 at 04:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,838
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    871 times in 735 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Didn't AMD come up with something like that recently or am I imagining it?
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Lenovo Flex 2 / 12GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: HTC One U11 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM12.1 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  3. #3
    Does he need a reason? Funkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    19,874
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked
    965 times in 816 posts
    • Funkstar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte EG45M-DS2H
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB OCZ PC2-6400C5 800MHz Quad Channel
      • Storage:
      • 650GB Western Digital Caviar Blue
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 512MB ATI Radeon HD4550
      • PSU:
      • Antec 350W 80+ Efficient PSU
      • Case:
      • Antec NSK1480 Slim Mini Desktop Case
      • Operating System:
      • Vista Ultimate 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2407 + 2408 monitors
      • Internet:
      • Zen 8mb

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    I think this falls into the "this would be amazing if it were actually possible" camp.

    Instead of working our how to make 4 cores look like just two, why not just have two very fast cores in the first place?

  4. #4
    Lovely chap dangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    8,385
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked
    449 times in 331 posts
    • dangel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • See My Sig
      • CPU:
      • See My Sig
      • Memory:
      • See My Sig
      • Storage:
      • See My Sig
      • Graphics card(s):
      • See My Sig
      • PSU:
      • See My Sig
      • Case:
      • See My Sig
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • See My Sig
      • Internet:
      • 60mbit Sky LLU

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by Funkstar View Post
    I think this falls into the "this would be amazing if it were actually possible" camp.

    Instead of working our how to make 4 cores look like just two, why not just have two very fast cores in the first place?
    It's because of the limit in cycle speed that we went multi-core anyway. It also makes more sense in a multitasking environment, and most software that needs more than a single core provides can be written appropriately to use another.
    System 001: Maximus VII Formula, 4790k i7, RTX 2080ti FE (incoming), 16GIG Corsair Vengence DDR3 RAM CL9, Corsair HX1000, ROG SWIFT PG278Q , SSDs, Antec 1200 case, All watercooled. [main]
    System 002: A8 3850 APU, ASUS uATX FM1A75 MB, 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3, Corsair psu, OCZ Agility 3, 1TB F3, Dell 2001FP 20" LCD, £7's worth of 5.1 speakers (they rock) Windows 7 x64[wife/server]
    System 003: AsRock MB, APU, 8 GIG Corsair, Silverstone HTPC case, stock cooler, GT220 1gbDDR3, WD Green 3TB, Kingston 40gb SSD, MCE Remote, Panasonic 50" LCD (87BDX) via HDMI Windows 8.1.1 (32) [media centre]
    System 004: Asus UL50AT Intel Core 2 Duo,4GB, Intel Gen 2 80GB SSD, Win 8.1.1 x64 [no justification]
    System 005: HP Proliant N40L Microserver, 4x2TB drives, fan mod, Pico PSU mod, Win7 x86 [file server]
    System 006: Dell Optiplex 9010, i7, 8gb, 128gb Samsung 830 x 2 (boot and VM drive), 1TB WD HDD, ATI something, Windows 8.1.1 x64 RTM [work]


  5. #5
    YUKIKAZE arthurleung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    88 times in 83 posts
    • arthurleung's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5E (Rampage Formula 0902)
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 3.6Ghz 1.2V
      • Memory:
      • A-Data DDR2-800 2x2GB CL4
      • Storage:
      • 4x1TB WD1000FYPS @ RAID5 3Ware 9500S-8 / 3x 1TB Samsung Ecogreen F2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeCube HD4870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair VX450
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows Server 2008 Standard
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp 2709W + 2001FP
      • Internet:
      • Be*Unlimited 20Mbps

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by handscombmp View Post
    Now i know tat the new i7's have hyperthreading again but what i reckon would be more useful was if you had the opposite.
    So instead of the pc seeing it as 4 x 3Ghz cores it saw it as 2 x 6Ghz as with not a large amount of apps using 4 cores yet surely it would make more sense.
    Now i know there's probaly something on why you can't, but what do you think of it?
    Or am i just being stupid
    To get what you wanted, the 2nd core need some data that is being processed by the 1st core.
    Its like doing a marathon, the other runners can't start until they get the stick from the previous runner. Getting them to run together doesn't make it faster.

    To make fast core in the first place, if Intel or AMD can make a 6Ghz processor they would have made it.
    Why 2 x 6Ghz if you can make 4 x 6Ghz !
    Workstation 1: Intel i7 950 @ 3.8Ghz / X58 / 12GB DDR3-1600 / HD4870 512MB / Antec P180
    Workstation 2: Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6Ghz / X38 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 8400GS 512MB / Open Air
    Workstation 3: Intel Xeon X3350 @ 3.2Ghz / P35 / 4GB DDR2-800 / HD4770 512MB / Shuttle SP35P2
    HTPC: AMD Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6Ghz / 780G / 4GB DDR2-1000 / Antec Mini P180 White
    Mobile Workstation: Intel C2D T8300 @ 2.4Ghz / GM965 / 3GB DDR2-667 / DELL Inspiron 1525 / 6+6+9 Cell Battery

    Display (Monitor): DELL Ultrasharp 2709W + DELL Ultrasharp 2001FP
    Display (Projector): Epson TW-3500 1080p
    Speakers: Creative Megaworks THX550 5.1
    Headphones: Etymotic hf2 / Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro

    Storage: 8x2TB Hitachi @ DELL PERC 6/i RAID6 / 13TB Non-RAID Across 12 HDDs
    Consoles: PS3 Slim 120GB / Xbox 360 Arcade 20GB / PS2

  6. #6
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,838
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    871 times in 735 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...perthreading/1

    Well, it was news in 2006...guess it didn't go anywhere in the end.
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Lenovo Flex 2 / 12GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: HTC One U11 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM12.1 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  7. #7
    Does he need a reason? Funkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    19,874
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked
    965 times in 816 posts
    • Funkstar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte EG45M-DS2H
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB OCZ PC2-6400C5 800MHz Quad Channel
      • Storage:
      • 650GB Western Digital Caviar Blue
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 512MB ATI Radeon HD4550
      • PSU:
      • Antec 350W 80+ Efficient PSU
      • Case:
      • Antec NSK1480 Slim Mini Desktop Case
      • Operating System:
      • Vista Ultimate 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2407 + 2408 monitors
      • Internet:
      • Zen 8mb

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by dangel View Post
    It's because of the limit in cycle speed that we went multi-core anyway. It also makes more sense in a multitasking environment, and most software that needs more than a single core provides can be written appropriately to use another.
    Yup, i was going to say that, but forgot to write it before posting

  8. #8
    Does he need a reason? Funkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    19,874
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked
    965 times in 816 posts
    • Funkstar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte EG45M-DS2H
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB OCZ PC2-6400C5 800MHz Quad Channel
      • Storage:
      • 650GB Western Digital Caviar Blue
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 512MB ATI Radeon HD4550
      • PSU:
      • Antec 350W 80+ Efficient PSU
      • Case:
      • Antec NSK1480 Slim Mini Desktop Case
      • Operating System:
      • Vista Ultimate 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2407 + 2408 monitors
      • Internet:
      • Zen 8mb

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    Its like doing a marathon, the other runners can't start until they get the stick from the previous runner. Getting them to run together doesn't make it faster.
    Or perhaps a relay?

  9. #9
    handscombmp
    Guest

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Thanks anyway. i knew that therr would be a reason and i suppose like you mentioned it would only be useful once the first lot of mulitcores come out as devolpers catcher up and write with more cores in mind.

  10. #10
    YUKIKAZE arthurleung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    88 times in 83 posts
    • arthurleung's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5E (Rampage Formula 0902)
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 3.6Ghz 1.2V
      • Memory:
      • A-Data DDR2-800 2x2GB CL4
      • Storage:
      • 4x1TB WD1000FYPS @ RAID5 3Ware 9500S-8 / 3x 1TB Samsung Ecogreen F2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeCube HD4870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair VX450
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows Server 2008 Standard
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp 2709W + 2001FP
      • Internet:
      • Be*Unlimited 20Mbps

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by Funkstar View Post
    Or perhaps a relay?
    LOL, forgot to proof-read my post.

    My personal view is, if a program doesn't support multi-threading, or if the multi-threading efficiency is not high, I just run multiple instances doing separate sections. Individually each of the program would be slow but collectively they'll be fast.
    Workstation 1: Intel i7 950 @ 3.8Ghz / X58 / 12GB DDR3-1600 / HD4870 512MB / Antec P180
    Workstation 2: Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6Ghz / X38 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 8400GS 512MB / Open Air
    Workstation 3: Intel Xeon X3350 @ 3.2Ghz / P35 / 4GB DDR2-800 / HD4770 512MB / Shuttle SP35P2
    HTPC: AMD Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6Ghz / 780G / 4GB DDR2-1000 / Antec Mini P180 White
    Mobile Workstation: Intel C2D T8300 @ 2.4Ghz / GM965 / 3GB DDR2-667 / DELL Inspiron 1525 / 6+6+9 Cell Battery

    Display (Monitor): DELL Ultrasharp 2709W + DELL Ultrasharp 2001FP
    Display (Projector): Epson TW-3500 1080p
    Speakers: Creative Megaworks THX550 5.1
    Headphones: Etymotic hf2 / Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro

    Storage: 8x2TB Hitachi @ DELL PERC 6/i RAID6 / 13TB Non-RAID Across 12 HDDs
    Consoles: PS3 Slim 120GB / Xbox 360 Arcade 20GB / PS2

  11. #11
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,110
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    1,042 times in 886 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    Didn't AMD come up with something like that recently or am I imagining it?
    AMD talked about this years ago.

    It makes limited sense, a CPU has a bunch of execution units available to it and can send a few instructions out per clock. If one CPU could get access to the execution units of another CPU, then it might be able to issue more work in a clock cycle.

    Thing is, you get conditional jump instructions about every 6 instructions on average which limits how many instructions you can usefully issue per clock. Then the extra wiring needed to do this would drop the clock speed you could get to as everything has a cost.

    They might have been able to share SSE units though, and there are potentially quite big gains to be made there given SSE was always intended to crunch big data sets with less looping.

    But then Windows would get in your way. One of your cores grabs extra SSE resources to run your game dead fast, then Windows for reasons unfathomable decides to switch that thread to another CPU and chooses one that currently has its SSE unit in use elsewhere, so the CPUs have to reconfigure themselves.

    So, the CPU has to be able to reconfigure itself on the fly, per clock cycle. Shared resources across 2 CPUs with wider than normal issue to make it worthwhile. I think if you take that to its logical conclusion, you end up designing the Core I7 Hyperthreading model

    AMD should just adopt multi-threading. IBM seem to do a cracking job with their Power architecture, hitting 5GHz with two threads per CPU, and the Intel effort is pretty effective too. Sun process massive thread pools on their slightly loopy Niagra CPU, so I don't know why AMD think they are special and can ignore the whole technology.

  12. #12
    YUKIKAZE arthurleung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    88 times in 83 posts
    • arthurleung's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5E (Rampage Formula 0902)
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 3.6Ghz 1.2V
      • Memory:
      • A-Data DDR2-800 2x2GB CL4
      • Storage:
      • 4x1TB WD1000FYPS @ RAID5 3Ware 9500S-8 / 3x 1TB Samsung Ecogreen F2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeCube HD4870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair VX450
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows Server 2008 Standard
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp 2709W + 2001FP
      • Internet:
      • Be*Unlimited 20Mbps

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    AMD talked about this years ago.

    It makes limited sense, a CPU has a bunch of execution units available to it and can send a few instructions out per clock. If one CPU could get access to the execution units of another CPU, then it might be able to issue more work in a clock cycle.

    Thing is, you get conditional jump instructions about every 6 instructions on average which limits how many instructions you can usefully issue per clock. Then the extra wiring needed to do this would drop the clock speed you could get to as everything has a cost.

    They might have been able to share SSE units though, and there are potentially quite big gains to be made there given SSE was always intended to crunch big data sets with less looping.

    But then Windows would get in your way. One of your cores grabs extra SSE resources to run your game dead fast, then Windows for reasons unfathomable decides to switch that thread to another CPU and chooses one that currently has its SSE unit in use elsewhere, so the CPUs have to reconfigure themselves.

    So, the CPU has to be able to reconfigure itself on the fly, per clock cycle. Shared resources across 2 CPUs with wider than normal issue to make it worthwhile. I think if you take that to its logical conclusion, you end up designing the Core I7 Hyperthreading model

    AMD should just adopt multi-threading. IBM seem to do a cracking job with their Power architecture, hitting 5GHz with two threads per CPU, and the Intel effort is pretty effective too. Sun process massive thread pools on their slightly loopy Niagra CPU, so I don't know why AMD think they are special and can ignore the whole technology.
    If SSE units can be shared, then I think I can safely assume that you can ALSO just add more SSE units to EVERY core, hence speeding it up.

    Hyper-threading only helps in very few cases and I remember many reviews saying HT affects single-thread performance.

    AMD have a slight advantage at the moment with 4 cores in 1 die, instead of a dual-die package like Intel. Although that left me wondering, why don't AMD just make dual-die CPU like Intel, and push out a 8-core CPU right now. Or perhaps that will affect the sale of DP QC Opteron that is very profitable in the server market?
    Workstation 1: Intel i7 950 @ 3.8Ghz / X58 / 12GB DDR3-1600 / HD4870 512MB / Antec P180
    Workstation 2: Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6Ghz / X38 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 8400GS 512MB / Open Air
    Workstation 3: Intel Xeon X3350 @ 3.2Ghz / P35 / 4GB DDR2-800 / HD4770 512MB / Shuttle SP35P2
    HTPC: AMD Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6Ghz / 780G / 4GB DDR2-1000 / Antec Mini P180 White
    Mobile Workstation: Intel C2D T8300 @ 2.4Ghz / GM965 / 3GB DDR2-667 / DELL Inspiron 1525 / 6+6+9 Cell Battery

    Display (Monitor): DELL Ultrasharp 2709W + DELL Ultrasharp 2001FP
    Display (Projector): Epson TW-3500 1080p
    Speakers: Creative Megaworks THX550 5.1
    Headphones: Etymotic hf2 / Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro

    Storage: 8x2TB Hitachi @ DELL PERC 6/i RAID6 / 13TB Non-RAID Across 12 HDDs
    Consoles: PS3 Slim 120GB / Xbox 360 Arcade 20GB / PS2

  13. #13
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,035
    Thanks
    1,013
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    If SSE units can be shared, then I think I can safely assume that you can ALSO just add more SSE units to EVERY core, hence speeding it up.
    You're still limited to how many instructions you can execute per clock cycle. SIMD simply allows you to process more data per instruction, you can't just add more units and sprinkle fairy dust and expect a performance increase. Especially since lots of software still largely ignores SIMD.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    AMD have a slight advantage at the moment with 4 cores in 1 die, instead of a dual-die package like Intel.
    i7?.. Also, there's nothing wrong with gluing two dies together in the same package, it's the same thing as adding sockets to a motherboard, only way cheaper, and way less latent.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    Although that left me wondering, why don't AMD just make dual-die CPU like Intel, and push out a 8-core CPU right now. Or perhaps that will affect the sale of DP QC Opteron that is very profitable in the server market?
    Probably because there aren't many motherboards which can pump 250W into a socket, or have a reasonably inexpensive and compact HSF design which can dissipate 250W of energy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  14. #14
    Ultra-Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Monton, Greater Manchester
    Posts
    250
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    9 times in 9 posts
    • sjbuck's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit X38 Quad GT with watercooled VRMs
      • CPU:
      • E6600 @ 3.6Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 4GB Corsair 4-4-4-12
      • Storage:
      • RAID0 - 2x OCZ Solids, 1 x 74GB Raptor, 2x2x400GB Samsung, 1.5TB Synology 207+
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX GTX295 :)
      • PSU:
      • Hyper 880W PSU,(Was 480Watt Tagan (Powering ALL this!))
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Full Case with 'Loft cooled' External Koolance Exos 2 Water Cooling
      • Operating System:
      • XP/V64/2008
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 30"
      • Internet:
      • Be 24Mbps (15Mbps/2Mbps in reality)

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    I've wondered for some time (10 years?!) if this was possible. Putting a layer over the CPU's which takes requests from a single threaded app and splits it across multiple cores. I'd guess the overhead in doing that would far outweigh any gains.......even if it were technically possible.

    It still amazes me how many apps are still single threaded. Nothing pleases me more than seeing all 4/8/16 cores (at work) running between 80 and 100%

  15. #15
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    , so I don't know why AMD think they are special and can ignore the whole technology.
    You really think that's the situation? I bet AMD would secretly love to be able to do it, but can't for either technological or IP reasons.

  16. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,110
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    1,042 times in 886 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: The opposite of hyperthreading

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    If SSE units can be shared, then I think I can safely assume that you can ALSO just add more SSE units to EVERY core, hence speeding it up.
    AMD's next gen Bulldozer will sort of do that (wider SSE units at least).

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    Hyper-threading only helps in very few cases and I remember many reviews saying HT affects single-thread performance.
    Only true for Pentium 4 Hyperthreading. Looking at the benchies it looks like Intel did a better job with the I7, along the lines of what IBM did with Power.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurleung View Post
    AMD have a slight advantage at the moment with 4 cores in 1 die, instead of a dual-die package like Intel. Although that left me wondering, why don't AMD just make dual-die CPU like Intel, and push out a 8-core CPU right now. Or perhaps that will affect the sale of DP QC Opteron that is very profitable in the server market?
    Again, that is on the AMD roadmap for the future, giving 12 cores as 2x6 and 16 as 2x8. Their mature inter processor bus technology should make that very efficient, but thermals are bound to limit the top clock speed. They are switching sockets for this exact reason, as it allows 4 memory channels to come to the outside world (2 from each core).

    They aught to be able to knock something out right now though, although the motherboard might get confused to discover it has suddenly grown another logical socket

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hyperthreading
    By handscombmp in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-11-2008, 09:26 PM
  2. Will 3870 X2 and 9800 GX2 work on opposite chipsets?
    By master811 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-01-2008, 03:02 PM
  3. micro atx hyperthreading mother board for p4 2.8 needed
    By wazi in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 10:36 AM
  4. HyperThreading Confusion??
    By paradidle in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-12-2003, 05:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •