• 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 RAWCKS!

HT owns big time...

All my p4 systems with HT are just creamy. No, seriously.
Forget about benchmarks, we are talking about the real world here.

I would only upgrade to a dual core and nothing else.
I would gladly give away some mhz for multi-processing.
 
I like HT,

I never bothered much with AXP's or A64's just because they had no form of HT.

The X2 however is interesting. I would upgrade if I had a need to right now, but since this machine does everything I need, I will wait a bit longer for Intels new cpus in the future before getting an AMD dual core.
 
Does the dual core amds run perfectly in windows? Ive always loved this P4 with HT, but was thinking about puting this one down and buildin myself a dual core a64. I can feel the difference with a couple single core a64s ive ran on compared to my P4.
 
kenpomasta said:
Does the dual core amds run perfectly in windows? Ive always loved this P4 with HT, but was thinking about puting this one down and buildin myself a dual core a64. I can feel the difference with a couple single core a64s ive ran on compared to my P4.
Click to expand...

X2 > single core p4 with HT
 
sabrewolf732 said:
X2 > single core p4 with HT
Click to expand...

Um thats a given, thanks for the useful post.

Pretty sure XP home won't do dual cores nicely, supposedly it can only do 1 physical processor. Pro should do it nice.
 
mdameron said:
Um thats a given, thanks for the useful post.

Pretty sure XP home won't do dual cores nicely, supposedly it can only do 1 physical processor. Pro should do it nice.
Click to expand...

he asked, I answered. :rolleyes:
 
mdameron said:
Um thats a given, thanks for the useful post.

Pretty sure XP home won't do dual cores nicely, supposedly it can only do 1 physical processor. Pro should do it nice.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure youre wrong. XP Home runs dual cores just fine.
 
Well then is it true SMP 2 physical processors that can't run under home? I've read it somewhere.... OCF or [H] I dunno...
 
mdameron said:
Well then is it true SMP 2 physical processors that can't run under home? I've read it somewhere.... OCF or [H] I dunno...
Click to expand...

2 processors, 2 cores <> 2 processors 1 core
 
jesus i'll just dig up that thread then if it'll save me from these one liner half-a-thought posts...

brb

Ok, well here is _one_ of the threads I've seen on this... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=415809&highlight=windows+dual+core

So i'm guessing 1 cpu 2 cores /= 2 cpu 1 core from a windows standpoint.

It doesn't even matter, and I couldn't care less. The point is yes, HT kicks ass. X2 kicks even more ass. HT is a gimmick and AXP pwns HT to AMD users. HT pwns AXP's if you're an intel user. 'Nuff on the subject.

EDIT and here's 131 posts of !!!!!!ism that will be the result of this thread if it doesn't get locked.... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=303168&highlight=windows+dual+core
 
mdameron said:
jesus i'll just dig up that thread then if it'll save me from these one liner half-a-thought posts...

brb

Ok, well here is _one_ of the threads I've seen on this... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=415809&highlight=windows+dual+core

So i'm guessing 1 cpu 2 cores /= 2 cpu 1 core from a windows standpoint.

It doesn't even matter, and I couldn't care less. The point is yes, HT kicks ass. X2 kicks even more ass. HT is a gimmick and AXP pwns HT to AMD users. HT pwns AXP's if you're an intel user. 'Nuff on the subject.

EDIT and here's 131 posts of !!!!!!ism that will be the result of this thread if it doesn't get locked.... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=303168&highlight=windows+dual+core
Click to expand...


Are you high? lol ;) I don't know what you're talking about. He asked a question and I answered, you're flipping out o_O
 
One processor with dual core works fine in XP Home. Two processors do not work fine in Home
 
Shameless Liar said:
Aha...

Lets see here...

$1,040 > $790
Similarly,

70C > 35C

And I think the X2 is still the victor here.
Click to expand...
HAHAHA

Thats why you dont pay for it. :) and im sitting at 50C i dont know what you are talking about. <3 watercooling :)
 
What was the point of your post? It is irrelevant. He asked whether an X2 is as efficient in windows as a p4 ht, I said it is even more so. And many many hardware sites reccomend the x2 over intel's dual core variations.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
HAHAHA

Thats why you dont pay for it. :) and im sitting at 50C i dont know what you are talking about. <3 watercooling :)
Click to expand...
The 70C was just a gross exaggeration. The point being that they put out a ton of heat, especially compared to the X2s. 50C with watercooling is rather high still. Imagine if you were stck on the stock cooler.
 
Shameless Liar said:
The 70C was just a gross exaggeration. The point being that they put out a ton of heat, especially compared to the X2s. 50C with watercooling is rather high still. Imagine if you were stck on the stock cooler.
Click to expand...

Not really, they consume something to the order of over 150W at full load, so 65-70 is a reasonable estimate on the stock cooler. The 2.8GHz one loads at like 66C on the stock intel cooler. Still, the 3.2 XE is a great chip. Too bad it costs more than the 4800+ that bests it in everything. The 820 for $270 is decent enough in that bang/buck aspect.
 
mdameron said:
jesus i'll just dig up that thread then if it'll save me from these one liner half-a-thought posts...

brb

Ok, well here is _one_ of the threads I've seen on this... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=415809&highlight=windows+dual+core

So i'm guessing 1 cpu 2 cores /= 2 cpu 1 core from a windows standpoint.

It doesn't even matter, and I couldn't care less. The point is yes, HT kicks ass. X2 kicks even more ass. HT is a gimmick and AXP pwns HT to AMD users. HT pwns AXP's if you're an intel user. 'Nuff on the subject.

EDIT and here's 131 posts of !!!!!!ism that will be the result of this thread if it doesn't get locked.... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=303168&highlight=windows+dual+core
Click to expand...

Microsoft defines licensing for processors "per socket". Therefore, 1 dual core processor works fine with Windows XP Home Edition. SMP systems like mine that have two single cores in two physical sockets can not function with XP Home Edition properly. The second CPU would not be seen or used.

Windows XP Professional can handle two physical and in the case of dual core Xeon's, with Hyperthreading, Pro handles all eight virtual CPU's.
 
Ya ht is nice simple fact is that your single core amd chips I consider to be junk only the amd x2's are good. One of my computers is a intel 3.0e prescott running at 4.1 ghz on air and I love it.
 
Shane said:
Ya ht is nice simple fact is that your single core amd chips I consider to be junk only the amd x2's are good. One of my computers is a intel 3.0e prescott running at 4.1 ghz on air and I love it.
Click to expand...


Junk? youre a troll, although I should expect no less in an Intel subforum. Single core AMDs own Intel at everything but hyperthreading. Thats why its talked about so much, its the ONLY thing Intel users can talk about. Its the only advantage (minor that it is) that they have.

AMD owns Intel at power usage
AMD owns Intel at performance
AMD owns Intel at price/performance
AMD owns Intel in heat generated
Intel has an afterthought hack added on to an stupidly designed extremely long pipline OMG AMD = JUNK!

screw this thread. HT IS nice. It is better than non-HT no doubt. But it hardly makes Intels shit not stink and it hardly makes AMD CPU's junk. Cry some more while a company with far fewer resources designs better chips.
 
Steel Chicken said:
Junk? youre a troll, although I should expect no less in an Intel subforum. Single core AMDs own Intel at everything but hyperthreading. Thats why its talked about so much, its the ONLY thing Intel users can talk about. Its the only advantage (minor that it is) that they have.

AMD owns Intel at power usage
AMD owns Intel at performance
AMD owns Intel at price/performance
AMD owns Intel in heat generated
Intel has an afterthought hack added on to an stupidly designed extremely long pipline OMG AMD = JUNK!

screw this thread. HT IS nice. It is better than non-HT no doubt. But it hardly makes Intels shit not stink and it hardly makes AMD CPU's junk. Cry some more while a company with far fewer resources designs better chips.
Click to expand...


Dont make a big fuss about it, this is an Intel forum thread, and its his opinion, youre acting like him now, except youre not talkin out of your ass :D

Took 3 pages to start teh flames, not bad.
 
Steel Chicken said:
Junk? youre a troll, although I should expect no less in an Intel subforum. Single core AMDs own Intel at everything but hyperthreading. Thats why its talked about so much, its the ONLY thing Intel users can talk about. Its the only advantage (minor that it is) that they have.

AMD owns Intel at power usage
AMD owns Intel at performance
AMD owns Intel at price/performance
AMD owns Intel in heat generated
Intel has an afterthought hack added on to an stupidly designed extremely long pipline OMG AMD = JUNK!

screw this thread. HT IS nice. It is better than non-HT no doubt. But it hardly makes Intels shit not stink and it hardly makes AMD CPU's junk. Cry some more while a company with far fewer resources designs better chips.
Click to expand...

Wow man, it's like the guy just made fun of your first born child, calm down.
 
FlatLine84 said:
Wow man, it's like the guy just made fun of your first born child, calm down.
Click to expand...

If not his first born, his mom.

Donnie27
 
It's sad to see a good thread turn into a flame war as soon as Steel Chicken tried to measure his e-penis. :( In case you haven't realized it yet, this is THE Intel forum...if you feel the need to voice your anti-Intel opinion you have your own AMD playground to play in. ;)

Oh, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. :p
 
i think steel was trying to be a little more objective instead of subjective. cause honestly, ht is just a rehashed/half assed attempt to do smp/dual core. the thing is, sure it nice doing something cpu intesive while playing a game, however, ur game runs like shit compared to a dual core. so honestly why even bother w/ it? why not just jump straight to dual core or smp? i guess one could argue price and ht IS free w/ a p4 cpu. but then again this the [H]ardforums and i thought as fellow members we are suppose to achieve the greatest computing experience possible w/ money as no object?

so why waste time on HT? the wannabe smp/dual core poser?

actually i think i'll start a thread on it....
 
Xeero said:
i think steel was trying to be a little more objective instead of subjective. cause honestly, ht is just a rehashed/half assed attempt to do smp/dual core. the thing is, sure it nice doing something cpu intesive while playing a game, however, ur game runs like shit compared to a dual core. so honestly why even bother w/ it? why not just jump straight to dual core or smp? i guess one could argue price and ht IS free w/ a p4 cpu. but then again this the [H]ardforums and i thought as fellow members we are suppose to achieve the greatest computing experience possible w/ money as no object?

so why waste time on HT? the wannabe smp/dual core poser?

actually i think i'll start a thread on it....
Click to expand...

Actually, you can do processor intensive things on HT. Granted, you still take a performance hit playing a game. It is NOT as bad as on a single core processor though. Specifically though, gaming or not, it IS more responsive in all things multitasking related.

However, if you seek the absolute best performance, there is no substitute of dual core or SMP. Back when HT came out, it was a great thing. HT processors really do balance their task load much better than standard processors do.
 
Xeero said:
i think steel was trying to be a little more objective instead of subjective. cause honestly, ht is just a rehashed/half assed attempt to do smp/dual core. the thing is, sure it nice doing something cpu intesive while playing a game, however, ur game runs like shit compared to a dual core. so honestly why even bother w/ it? why not just jump straight to dual core or smp? i guess one could argue price and ht IS free w/ a p4 cpu. but then again this the [H]ardforums and i thought as fellow members we are suppose to achieve the greatest computing experience possible w/ money as no object?

so why waste time on HT? the wannabe smp/dual core poser?

actually i think i'll start a thread on it....
Click to expand...

imho, ht takes good advantage of netbursts large amount of stages. Might as well have it
:p :D
 
Xeero said:
so why waste time on HT? the wannabe smp/dual core poser?

actually i think i'll start a thread on it....
Click to expand...

Yeah no shit, why waste time on AXP's anyway...

hell, everyone go SMP cause its all a waste of time
 
mdameron said:
Yeah no shit, why waste time on AXP's anyway...

hell, everyone go SMP cause its all a waste of time
Click to expand...

cause at the time you could get a 2500+ for $100 and oc it to a 3200+ giving equal performance to a 2.8ghz P4? while a 2.4c at the time went for $170ish and intel chipset mobos were more expensive at the time? and nforce2 had soundstorm for dolby digital live encoding?
 
Steel Chicken said:
Junk? youre a troll, although I should expect no less in an Intel subforum. Single core AMDs own Intel at everything but hyperthreading. Thats why its talked about so much, its the ONLY thing Intel users can talk about. Its the only advantage (minor that it is) that they have.

AMD owns Intel at power usage
AMD owns Intel at performance
AMD owns Intel at price/performance
AMD owns Intel in heat generated
Intel has an afterthought hack added on to an stupidly designed extremely long pipline OMG AMD = JUNK!

screw this thread. HT IS nice. It is better than non-HT no doubt. But it hardly makes Intels shit not stink and it hardly makes AMD CPU's junk. Cry some more while a company with far fewer resources designs better chips.
Click to expand...

Dude you're fucking hypocrit. This is the intel subforum, and you come in here bashing intel. If that guy came into the AMD subform saying OMFG INTEL IS TEH PWN... then he would be the troll. In this case, you win the prize.

FUCKING TROLL.

Show me a bench where a single core AXP 3000+ beats my 3.0E w/HT at anything. My setup skull-fucks my dad's 3000+ barton setup on an asus board... In all Sandra benches. Hell, he likes mine more cause it's waaaaay snappier in windows than his.

This entire argument is pointless, both intel and AMD are not friends of consumers... and neither should have fan boys.

Before you call me a fan boy or a troll.... know that I have a complete S939 setup waiting to be checked out at the 'egg. I like AMD better than intel.
 
Xeero said:
cause at the time you could get a 2500+ for $100 and oc it to a 3200+ giving equal performance to a 2.8ghz P4? while a 2.4c at the time went for $170ish and intel chipset mobos were more expensive at the time? and nforce2 had soundstorm for dolby digital live encoding?
Click to expand...

Dude stock for stock. Don't talk about overclockability... (is that a word :p)... you could easily jack the hell out of that 2.4c. It's been done.

And currently s754 setups are damn near the same price as a s478 setup w/ HT
 
I went from regular P4 2.4ghz to 2.8Ghz HT to D820 and I can't really notice any difference except when I re-encode DVDs...

I did have dual Opteron for a few weeks and that system was 2 x 244s and it seemed much snappier even with an Nforce3 chipset...

I think some of the speed increase might be psychological. ;)
 
Ultra Wide said:
I went from regular P4 2.4ghz to 2.8Ghz HT to D820 and I can't really notice any difference except when I re-encode DVDs...

I did have dual Opteron for a few weeks and that system was 2 x 244s and it seemed much snappier even with an Nforce3 chipset...

I think some of the speed increase might be psychological. ;)
Click to expand...

Definitely man... when you throw down a lot of change... sometimes you make yourself see increases! :D I've done it myself
 
mdameron said:
Show me a bench where a single core AXP 3000+ beats my 3.0E w/HT at anything. My setup skull-fucks my dad's 3000+ barton setup on an asus board... In all Sandra benches. Hell, he likes mine more cause it's waaaaay snappier in windows than his.
Click to expand...

i believe he was pointing out a64v.s. current p4s and not axps?
 
Xeero said:
i believe he was pointing out a64v.s. current p4s and not axps?
Click to expand...

If that's the case then I apologize, A64's are sweet rigs and I would take one over mine in a heart beat. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top