Hyper-threaded dual core processors for notebooks?

[RangerXML]

I know that HT quad cores is a big deal for the i7, but what about a HT dual core for notebooks? I mean for all purposes we would be talking about a poor mans quad core here that theoretically would also take less power then a conventional quad and run cooler. As mention it would be a poor mans quad, which would also be less power full then a normal quad, but would also yield the benefits of a quad and be cheaper to produce (I would presume).

Any thoughts on the subject?

 

[Scali2]

Well, I believe that Intel plans to launch mainstream products on the Nehalem architecture, including dualcores.
These would probably also find their way to notebooks, and assuming that Intel leaves HT enabled on these models, they'd be exactly what you want.
And yes, Intel has pretty much always advertised HT as giving better performance-per-transistor than extra cores.

 

[ilkhan]

The core you are talking about is auburndale, a 45nm (hopefully they skip this and go straight to 32nm, it should be released at about the same date) dual core nehalem based chip. HT will be enabled, and it will have the onboard GPU (seperate chip, on the CPU package, like Core2 chips are with 2 chips on 1 package) and 16 PCI-E lanes coming direct from the CPU socket for external GPU solutions with no northbridge chip at all. ETA 12'09 or Q1'10. This will be the heart of my next high power laptop.

A 35W-45W quad thread chip that displaces the NB AND GPU? Even if its 10W more than my last chip, those two used FAR more than 10W combined. Use a high speed SSD, LED backlight, and toushcreen/tablet formfactor and you have a laptop that while expensive will last for at least 5 years.

There will be a similar chip as a quad, but that one, clarksfield, wont have the onboard GPU. (its big enough without the GPU)

Win7 needs a power mode that concentrates work on 1 or 2 cores, to take advantage of nehalems 0W draw on idle cores....

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Intel has Core 2 Xeons, dual core with HT, I don't know I never really heard about them till I got one in a workstation!

that would work =)

It's a Xeon 5130 2Ghz

 

[Scali2]

Intel has Core 2 Xeons, dual core with HT, I don't know I never really heard about them till I got one in a workstation!

that would work =)

It's a Xeon 5130 2Ghz

I don't think it has HT (the Core2 architectures simply don't have HT in their design, period).
This is the spec page from Intel: http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9RX

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I don't think it has HT (the Core2 architectures simply don't have HT in their design, period).
This is the spec page from Intel: http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9RX

I thought the same thing
but my machine reports 4 cpus, with only a single 5130 installed, even cpu z shows 2 cpus and 2 threads.

even some sites list HT
https://www.internet.ch/en/1052_Com...2-667ECC),160GB,D_F_CD-RW_DVD,no_graphic.html

I'm not sure how or why but I'll get some SS for you =p

 

[CamaroZ28]

I thought the same thing
but my machine reports 4 cpus, with only a single 5130 installed, even cpu z shows 2 cpus and 2 threads.

even some sites list HT
https://www.internet.ch/en/1052_Com...2-667ECC),160GB,D_F_CD-RW_DVD,no_graphic.html

I'm not sure how or why but I'll get some SS for you =p

Mind posting a screen shot of cpu-z?

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

so it's confusing
Dell by service tag confirms 1cpu,
Intel says no HT
cpu Z says no HT
but windows sees 4 cpus 0.0

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I downloaded everest, It says 2 dual core cpus, so I guess dells config is wrong

so no HT but 4 cores

 

[MrWizard6600]

2 CPUs 2 Threads means its dual core without HT. Each core is capable of 1 thread. On an HT enabled dual core CPU, CPU-Z would say "2 cores, 4 threads".

On the left is a single core P4 w/ HT enabled. 1 core, 2 threads, on the right is the C2D CPU I'm currently running on, that doesnt have HT: 2 cores, 2 threads. If it did have HT (which, architecturally it cant), it would say 2 cores 4 threads.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

2 CPUs 2 Threads means its dual core without HT. Each core is capable of 1 thread. On an HT enabled dual core CPU, CPU-Z would say "2 cores, 4 threads".

This is a single core P4 w/ HT enabled. 1 core, 2 threads.

I realize that, but I still saw 4 cores everywhere else, and the config of the machine stated a single dual core cpu.

 

[MrWizard6600]

I realize that, but I still saw 4 cores everywhere else, and the config of the machine stated a single dual core cpu.

Sorry then I mis-read your post. Rest assured, that Xeon doesn't have HT unless its based on Smithfield or Presler (Pentium D) chips.

Back on topic, there will be desktop HT enabled Dual Cores out under the branding Core i5.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Sorry then I mis-read your post. Rest assured, that Xeon doesn't have HT unless its based on Smithfield or Presler (Pentium D) chips.

Back on topic, there will be desktop HT enabled Dual Cores out under the branding Core i5.

it's fine, originally, I didn't think there were any core2 chips with HT either, I just put too much faith in Dells competence and figured maybe they released them later on under the radar.

on the other hand, why do you want HT in a dual core chip? It's not likely to help much with basic desktop use or laptop even.

 

[CamaroZ28]

it's fine, originally, I didn't think there were any core2 chips with HT either, I just put too much faith in Dells competence and figured maybe they released them later on under the radar.

on the other hand, why do you want HT in a dual core chip? It's not likely to help much with basic desktop use or laptop even.

Not true, it wouldn't be anything like the performance gain HT yields in the i7's but it will still help for well multi-threaded processes.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Not true, it wouldn't be anything like the performance gain HT yields in the i7's but it will still help for well multi-threaded processes.

not on an already dual core processor, it helped so much with the P4 because it was 1 core, 1 thread at the time

 

[CamaroZ28]

not on an already dual core processor, it helped so much with the P4 because it was 1 core, 1 thread at the time

If that argument were true then it would be useless on the i7's because they "already have four cores" however you can check many benchmarks of multithreaded applications and you will see that HT definitely helps. Not to mention that the HT on i7's is a bit more refined then the HT on the P4.

 

[bholstege]

this already exists. the dual core atom has hyper threading.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

If that argument were true then it would be useless on the i7's because they "already have four cores" however you can check many benchmarks of multithreaded applications and you will see that HT definitely helps. Not to mention that the HT on i7's is a bit more refined then the HT on the P4.

for 99.9% of desktop users, HT is useless on the i7 , it was great on the P4 because it made multi-tasking much more fluid and smooth, on the i7 you won't see a difference either way, I'm sure there are more server / hpc applications that can take advantage of it, other then that I can't see any good desktop use to come out of HT on a dual or quad core chip.

 

[ilkhan]

this already exists. the dual core atom has hyper threading.

Only the desktop 330 has DC/HT. The notebook/netbook chips are still single cores.

 

[CamaroZ28]

for 99.9% of desktop users, HT is useless on the i7 , it was great on the P4 because it made multi-tasking much more fluid and smooth, on the i7 you won't see a difference either way, I'm sure there are more server / hpc applications that can take advantage of it, other then that I can't see any good desktop use to come out of HT on a dual or quad core chip.

I disagree, I think anyone compiling or rendering with an application that supports >4 threads will definitely see an advantage with HT on vs. off.

 

[Scali2]

I disagree, I think anyone compiling or rendering with an application that supports >4 threads will definitely see an advantage with HT on vs. off.

I agree. In fact, even some games are starting to take advantage of 4+ threads, and this will likely only increase in future.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I disagree, I think anyone compiling or rendering with an application that supports >4 threads will definitely see an advantage with HT on vs. off.

like i said, 99.9% of the desktop users won't see the advantage, the other 1% that use it for rendering or compiling might enjoy the benefit. it's mostly going to be useful on workstations and servers where apps are heavily multithreaded

 

[CamaroZ28]

like i said, 99.9% of the desktop users won't see the advantage, the other 1% that use it for rendering or compiling might enjoy the benefit. it's mostly going to be useful on workstations and servers where apps are heavily multithreaded

Maybe 99.9% of all computer users in the world... but I wouldn't say 99.9% of Core i7 users... especially on this forum. There are lots of people that render or compile. Now with more and more apps being designed for multithreaded processors, it would make even more sense to add HT to dual cores.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Maybe 99.9% of all computer users in the world... but I wouldn't say 99.9% of Core i7 users... especially on this forum. There are lots of people that render or compile. Now with more and more apps being designed for multithreaded processors, it would make even more sense to add HT to dual cores.

even the people on this forum, alot of people buy high end gear for the sake of having it =) by the looks of it anyway, GPU based rendering will overtake any quad core cpu with a GPU that costs less then half of what the quad would cost you.

I'm not saying that HT won't have it's benefits on a dual core cpu, but the people that "need" to have it on a dual core cpu would be better served by getting a quad core instead, in which case a Q6600,Q8200-9550 would be much faster at those tasks that require more cores. who knows what low power quads can do in laptops =) I think they're going to be more popular this year.

Chances are that a dual core i5/i7 will cost close to a Q6600 in price.

 

[RangerXML]

I'm not saying that HT won't have it's benefits on a dual core cpu, but the people that "need" to have it on a dual core cpu would be better served by getting a quad core instead, in which case a Q6600,Q8200-9550 would be much faster at those tasks that require more cores. who knows what low power quads can do in laptops =) I think they're going to be more popular this year.

Chances are that a dual core i5/i7 will cost close to a Q6600 in price.

HT dual core for notebooks, poor man's quad.

 

[Scali2]

According to Intel, HT gives better performance/watt than 'real' cores.
So it seems to be an excellent solution for netbooks, notebooks and other devices that benefit from efficient energy consumption.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

According to Intel, HT gives better performance/watt than 'real' cores.
So it seems to be an excellent solution for netbooks, notebooks and other devices that benefit from efficient energy consumption.

First of all, the argument that people who need a good amount of processing power for their professional work are going to depend on laptops is not really valid, while some people do some light work on their laptops, most cad designers I've worked with have wanted real workstations, with at least a single, or dual processor and a workstation card.

Netbooks(maybe the atom can benefit as it's terrible at multi-tasking in the first place)
Notebooks(unless you really HAVE TO do some heavy work, I don't think it's needed)
PCs(if you use this for any sort of CAD/VIDEO/PHOTO Editing then get a quad, or a quad with HT if you must)

I really DON'T SEE the need for a dual core chip with HT for the average user, as far as I can see it's a marketing gimmick, and unless there are some tests to prove what Intel is claiming then I'll stick with my not needed assessment

 

[Scali2]

First of all, the argument that people who need a good amount of processing power for their professional work are going to depend on laptops is not really valid, while some people do some light work on their laptops, most cad designers I've worked with have wanted real workstations, with at least a single, or dual processor and a workstation card.

Well, I'm a software developer, and I have a notebook only at work. This is partly because in my line of work you sometimes need to do some development/debugging/testing on the spot. And having both a notebook and a desktop is not cost-effective. So we get beefy Dell Lattitude notebooks, and in the office we have a docking station with separate monitor, keyboard and mouse, so we have the same comfort as a real desktop system.

On these notebooks we do software development, debugging, and sometimes we need to use VirtualPC as a debugging/testing environment to keep from crashing and rebooting the system itself all the time. So yes, high-end CPUs, lots of memory and a decent HDD help in my line of work (my current notebook is about a year old now, and has a Core2 Duo 2.4 GHz with 4 GB of memory, pretty much the best Dell had to offer back then. If there was a quadcore, I'd have had one... and HT sounds like a useful feature aswell).

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Well, I'm a software developer, and I have a notebook only at work. This is partly because in my line of work you sometimes need to do some development/debugging/testing on the spot. And having both a notebook and a desktop is not cost-effective. So we get beefy Dell Lattitude notebooks, and in the office we have a docking station with separate monitor, keyboard and mouse, so we have the same comfort as a real desktop system.

On these notebooks we do software development, debugging, and sometimes we need to use VirtualPC as a debugging/testing environment to keep from crashing and rebooting the system itself all the time. So yes, high-end CPUs, lots of memory and a decent HDD help in my line of work (my current notebook is about a year old now, and has a Core2 Duo 2.4 GHz with 4 GB of memory, pretty much the best Dell had to offer back then. If there was a quadcore, I'd have had one... and HT sounds like a useful feature aswell).

well you just proved my point
if there was a quad core, you'd have one, HT is useful to you as well but why not HT on a QC instead of wasting it on the dual core chip.

my whole point is HT is useless on a dual core when a quad is available.

it's like saying I'm going to get 2 9600GTs and do SLI when I can get a single GTX 260 that would out perform them significantly.

currently quads are available on laptops are they not?

 

[Scali2]

well you just proved my point
if there was a quad core, you'd have one, HT is useful to you as well but why not HT on a QC instead of wasting it on the dual core chip.

my whole point is HT is useless on a dual core when a quad is available.

I think you didn't get my point.
I don't have a quadcore because it wasn't there for notebooks (although it was available for desktops).
A dualcore with HT could be a very nice option when quads aren't available... and looking at the power requirements of the Core i7 line, I think it will take awhile before we see Nehalem-based mobile chips with 4 cores.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Nehalem-based dualcore with HT is faster than a mobile Penryn-based quadcore at the same price/power consumption level.

 

[CamaroZ28]

I think you didn't get my point.
I don't have a quadcore because it wasn't there for notebooks (although it was available for desktops).
A dualcore with HT could be a very nice option when quads aren't available... and looking at the power requirements of the Core i7 line, I think it will take awhile before we see Nehalem-based mobile chips with 4 cores.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Nehalem-based dualcore with HT is faster than a mobile Penryn-based quadcore at the same price/power consumption level.

QFT... thats what I've been trying to get at as well.

 

[ilkhan]

YES YES YES YES YES!
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7720-view-Intel-will-not-release-Havendale-processors.html
aurburndale is dead, intel is gonna go directly to 32nm with arandale.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I think you didn't get my point.
I don't have a quadcore because it wasn't there for notebooks (although it was available for desktops).
A dualcore with HT could be a very nice option when quads aren't available... and looking at the power requirements of the Core i7 line, I think it will take awhile before we see Nehalem-based mobile chips with 4 cores.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Nehalem-based dualcore with HT is faster than a mobile Penryn-based quadcore at the same price/power consumption level.

I seriously doubt that an i7 DC is going to be anywhere close to the performance of a penryn QC in applications that are going to benefit from Hyper threading (this would be interesting to see when they do launch)

and while Quad cores were not available, neither were dual cores with HT, so that makes your point moot all together :/

Currently, Quads are available, and dual cores with HT are not, so why are dual core chips with HT even considered

Do the i7 Motherboards have the options of disabling cores? I think some mobos did for previous Quads and dual core chips. in that case maybe we can get someone to run a dual core i7 setup to see how the future looks in terms of dual core performance

 

[Scali2]

I seriously doubt that an i7 DC is going to be anywhere close to the performance of a penryn QC in applications that are going to benefit from Hyper threading (this would be interesting to see when they do launch)

Well I think you could be wrong.

and while Quad cores were not available, neither were dual cores with HT, so that makes your point moot all together :/

Currently, Quads are available, and dual cores with HT are not, so why are dual core chips with HT even considered

This is about the future. Most likely mobile Nehalem chips with 2 cores will be released long before the quadcores will (just like Intel never released 65 nm quadcores for the mobile market, but waited for 45 nm, for obvious reasons).
This will put the Nehalem dualcores against the Penryn quadcores.

Do the i7 Motherboards have the options of disabling cores? I think some mobos did for previous Quads and dual core chips.

No need, just use the affinity in Windows task manager to limit an application to run on certain cores. I believe there's also a boot-flag for Windows to limit it to a certain number of cores.

 

[RangerXML]

I seriously doubt that an i7 DC is going to be anywhere close to the performance of a penryn QC in applications that are going to benefit from Hyper threading

and while Quad cores were not available, neither were dual cores with HT, so that makes your point moot all together :/

Currently, Quads are available, and dual cores with HT are not, so why are dual core chips with HT even considered?

I would presume because 4 core use more power then 2 cores with HT. The only reason I thought this up was because I have a notebook with power issues and possible heating issues. The P4 HT was a great CPU for its time had more apps been written for HT, as many of the folks that I talked to at the time put it, a poor man's dual core. Thus I though about how notebooks of today have heating/power issues with quads of today and how since a HT dual core would use less power and emit less heat, it would still have the benefits of being able to process on 4 threats. I would picture for the price you could get something that would out perform the current Q9100. But then again, I'm guessing out of my ASS.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

so lets get someone to run some tests
a "dual core i7" vs a quad core penryn

say 2ghz quad vs 2.66ghz dual?

 

[CamaroZ28]

so lets get someone to run some tests
a "dual core i7" vs a quad core penryn

say 2ghz quad vs 2.66ghz dual?

Find me the dual core i7 first

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Find me the dual core i7 first

like Scali said, you can set affinity to only 2 cores even though in reality it wouldn't be valid as the rest of the system needs to run on 2 cores too, but it should be accurate enough to guestimate the performance % from current quads.

 

[ilkhan]

BIOS can limit the number of active cores. But the cache is still there. Regardless, this argument is stupid. Inactive nehalem cores use ZERO power. The drawbacks of the quad are mainly transistor/die-size budget and heat concerns while active.

An actual quad is always going to be faster than a dual+HT. The benefit to the dual+HT model is greater power efficiency while working and more importantly, price.

I just want that arandale...