• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Hyperthreading LGA775 Procs?

C

CaptCanada

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
81
Hi all

Just wondering if any Socket 775 processors have Hyperthreading? I just assumed that my X6800 had HT, but it doesn't.

Thanks
 
Zero82z said:
No, it's because the Core microarchitecture is completely different from the Netburst architecture and HT was never a part of the design.
Click to expand...

The new i5's & i7's were in development and they nearly had finalized product a year ago. If they really wanted us to have HT, then the would have done the R&D on how to implement it on the 775 core processors.

They chose not to do that, as incentive for us to upgrade to the newer sockets/processors.
 
drgnfang said:
Mostly cause HT on the netburst arch sucked. Bad.
Click to expand...
No, it worked quite well as a matter of fact.
gwarren007 said:
The new i5's & i7's were in development and they nearly had finalized product a year ago. If they really wanted us to have HT, then the would have done the R&D on how to implement it on the 775 core processors.

They chose not to do that, as incentive for us to upgrade to the newer sockets/processors.
Click to expand...
The Core architecture was finalized long before the Nehalem architecture was. Yes, they theoretically could have implemented HT into the Core architecture. However, like I said, it was never part of the design. It was not a forced upgrade incentive, it was simply a design choice.
 
"Despite these enhancements, the NetBurst architecture created obstacles for engineers trying to scale up its performance. With this microarchitecture, Intel looked to attain clock speeds of 10 GHz, but because of rising clock speeds, Intel faced increasing problems with keeping power dissipation within acceptable limits. Intel reached a speed barrier of 3.8 GHz in November 2004 but encountered problems trying to achieve even that. Intel abandoned NetBurst in 2006 after the heat problems reached a level of severity and then developed Core microarchitecture, inspired by the P6 Core of the Pentium Pro to the Tualatin Pentium III-S and most directly the Pentium M." (from wiki of course)

For the record, I'm not saying that HT sucked, just that on NetBurst it was unworkable.
 
Last edited:
That bit of text doesn't say anything about HT. The only thing it mentions is the issue of heat preventing Intel from scaling to the clock speeds it had originally intended to.
 
True enough. I'm going off second hand knowledge (from server admins in the day who complained about HT being useless, having to disable it, etc...). Personally, I skipped over P3/P4/Core straight from a P2/450 to a C2D/6420. I also know that there was a lot of skepticism in the market when Intel announced that they were bringing HT back with Atom/Nehalem.
 
I'm going off personal experience from years of using machines running P4s with HT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top