Originally Posted by friend'scatdied
I don't own any consoles, and it's not my intention to insult your intelligence.
Media applications take great advantage of hyper threading (among other things). It's not useless and has the potential to see near 100% scaling in particularly inefficient programs.
Bulldozer is a bit unrelated to what you seem to argue. It's eight physical cores and it's in a bit of a flux to be talking about with regards to gaming and the computing environment.
You have to understand that if you're arguing that game developers will eventually code to make use of Hyper Threading, that's tantamount to purposefully making their coding inefficient. While the virtual threads in Hyper Threading enable the simultaneous "handling" of two threads on a single core, the core can't actually execute both threads at the same time. It's essentially working on the virtual thread when the processing core would otherwise be in an idle state. It's more like one person trying to manage two different tasks (one core with hyper-threading) than two people independently managing these tasks (two physical cores).
Running contrariwise to your argument actually, the X360 and PS3 utilize bits of SMT that are very similar to Hyper Threading. If we should see any meaningful gains from Hyper Threading, it should be in console ports. But we don't.
1) I assumed you owned a console since under your name it clearly says "Console Gamer"
2)BD's 8 cores are not really full cores and share a lot of the same principle as HT, yes I agree with you that not both tasks can be done at once, but the principle is that it shares certain parts of what we’d expect to find as dedicated resources in a typical execution core, including instruction fetch and decode stages, floating-point units, and the L2 cache. Simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) is duplicating the resources needed to issue instructions from multiple threads to one physical core at minimal hardware cost. When a single thread fails to fully utilize a core’s resources, SMT fills in the gaps, squeezing every bit of potential from it. That’s what Intel’s Hyper-Threading technology does. The thing is, although Windows sees two logical processors for every physical core, the performance advantages are much more modest in real-world apps. Point is, when an operation can be done, it is done, no waiting around as much, that is the goal of SMT (which is very similar to what BD does since per core it only has one "pipeline" so when they say 8 it's really 4)
3) About the coding part you mentioned, you can program it so that, for example, when one is in the process of executing an addition the other thread is doing data handling or a fetch. That can be done and ordered, so that there is no down time, it's instruction after instruction. I hear you if your trying to say that if you have one instruction that is suppose to be done after another (which would be in an another physical core) is done prior to the first would be problematic; however this issue can be tackled by queue assessment, this is why some high productivity suits utilizes SMT so well.
4)Idk why you keep trying to dumb it down when i clearly already stated how HT worked?
5)About the consoles, I knew that consoles used an adaption of SMT but you must know that these are not direct ports, hence one will not compute like the other. Every time they do a port they try to optimize it as much as they can for that OS/hardware, all I'm saying is they should put more effort for computers. It can be done, it might be done eventually. I'm just tired of games that seem not pushed, like they could achieve so much more, especially in graphics. I want something to use all the computing power I have.