What is the difference between the two? - and do cores matter more than hyper threaded cores?
Thanks
Thanks




Choadasaurus-Rex
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Pro [on route] | Gigabyte GTX 580 | Mushkin Blackline 4GB 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| 2X Samsung F3 HD502HJ 500GB | .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. | Windows 7 HP 64 bit | Samsung Syncmaster Xl2370 |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Logitech G15 | Corsair HX750w | Corsair 800D | Logitech G9 |
| View all | |||
Choadasaurus-Rex
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Pro [on route] | Gigabyte GTX 580 | Mushkin Blackline 4GB 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| 2X Samsung F3 HD502HJ 500GB | .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. | Windows 7 HP 64 bit | Samsung Syncmaster Xl2370 |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Logitech G15 | Corsair HX750w | Corsair 800D | Logitech G9 |
| View all | |||
Pff , Stable my rear
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q9550 3.4 | Asus P5Q3 | GTX 275 | Kingston DDR3 4gb |
| Hard Drive | OS | Monitor | Keyboard |
| Caviar Black | Windows 7 x64 | Viewsonic | A4Tech KB-21 |
| Power | Case | Mouse | |
| 700w Seasonic | HAF 932 | Trust Predator |
Pff , Stable my rear
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q9550 3.4 | Asus P5Q3 | GTX 275 | Kingston DDR3 4gb |
| Hard Drive | OS | Monitor | Keyboard |
| Caviar Black | Windows 7 x64 | Viewsonic | A4Tech KB-21 |
| Power | Case | Mouse | |
| 700w Seasonic | HAF 932 | Trust Predator |




MKG-Cosmos II
(14 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i7 920 DO oc'd to 4.25Ghz | EVGA 3-way Sli Classified | 2x480 SLI | 3x2g Corsair CMG6GX3M3A2000C7 |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | Cooling | OS |
| 80g Intel ssd, 2x300g raptors (0), 2x1 TB RE3 (0 | Pioneer Blu-Ray burner, 22x dvd burner | custom loop | Windows 7 64bit |
| Monitor | Keyboard | Power | Case |
| LG W3000H, dell ultra-sharp 24" | Ducky 'OCN' with brown | hx1000 | Cosmos II |
| Mouse | Mouse Pad | ||
| mionix naos 5000 | steelseries SX | ||
| View all | |||
MKG-Cosmos II
(14 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i7 920 DO oc'd to 4.25Ghz | EVGA 3-way Sli Classified | 2x480 SLI | 3x2g Corsair CMG6GX3M3A2000C7 |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | Cooling | OS |
| 80g Intel ssd, 2x300g raptors (0), 2x1 TB RE3 (0 | Pioneer Blu-Ray burner, 22x dvd burner | custom loop | Windows 7 64bit |
| Monitor | Keyboard | Power | Case |
| LG W3000H, dell ultra-sharp 24" | Ducky 'OCN' with brown | hx1000 | Cosmos II |
| Mouse | Mouse Pad | ||
| mionix naos 5000 | steelseries SX | ||
| View all | |||
Teh YayZors!
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k 4.3GHz | Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3 (Revision) | Inno3D Geforce GTX 570 | G.Skill RipJaws X 4GB (2 x 2GB) 1600mhz |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| 3x 1TB + 200GB External | LG SuperMulti Lightscribe | Win 7 x86+x64 + Snow Leopard (hackintosh) | 24" Samsung SyncMaster BX2450 |
| Power | Case | ||
| Corsair HX850W | Coolermaster CM690 II Advanced | ||
| View all | |||
Teh YayZors!
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k 4.3GHz | Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3 (Revision) | Inno3D Geforce GTX 570 | G.Skill RipJaws X 4GB (2 x 2GB) 1600mhz |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| 3x 1TB + 200GB External | LG SuperMulti Lightscribe | Win 7 x86+x64 + Snow Leopard (hackintosh) | 24" Samsung SyncMaster BX2450 |
| Power | Case | ||
| Corsair HX850W | Coolermaster CM690 II Advanced | ||
| View all | |||



|
oh i thought hyper threading worked like this:
if u have 4 cores, and your program only is able to utilize one core, it creates one hyper Virtual core, so in effect, the program is using 4 cores but thinks its only 1! |
Core2 Killer: Budget Edition
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k (4.5ghz@1.336v) | ASRock P67 Extreme4 | SLI Gigabyte GTX470 (800c/1740m) | G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB 1600 (@1866) |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| G.Skill Phoenix Pro 60gb + WD Caviar Blue 320gb | ASUS DVD-RW | Windows 7 64bit | 22" Acer x223w |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Blackwidow Ultimate | Seasonic X650 | CM Storm Scout | Logitech G400 |
| Mouse Pad | |||
| are you kidding? | |||
| View all | |||
Core2 Killer: Budget Edition
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| i5 2500k (4.5ghz@1.336v) | ASRock P67 Extreme4 | SLI Gigabyte GTX470 (800c/1740m) | G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB 1600 (@1866) |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| G.Skill Phoenix Pro 60gb + WD Caviar Blue 320gb | ASUS DVD-RW | Windows 7 64bit | 22" Acer x223w |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Blackwidow Ultimate | Seasonic X650 | CM Storm Scout | Logitech G400 |
| Mouse Pad | |||
| are you kidding? | |||
| View all | |||





| Cores are physical hardware blocks in the processor that can run applications serially. Threads, on the other hand, aren’t physical – they are software-generated tasks that can execute independently. A well threaded program will run itself across multiple cores. |
|
Originally Posted by AMD
So – cores are like bikes, threads are the riders. Running more threads increases throughput for applications as long as you have available cores. If you have threads waiting to be scheduled and no available cores – you have a bottleneck.
|
Campus Edition
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| E6300 | Dell 0HR330 | Sapphire Radeon 5670 | Corsair XMS2 4GB |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| OCZ Vertex 2 60GB + WD Green 1TB | 16x DVD/RW sata | Windows 7 x64 | HP w2207h 22-inch |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Comfort Curve Keyboard 2000 | Dell 305w Power Supply | Dell OptiPlex 745 Mini Tower | SideWinder X5 |
| Mouse Pad | |||
| Razer eXactMat Duo | |||
| View all | |||
Campus Edition
(13 items) |
| CPU | Motherboard | Graphics | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| E6300 | Dell 0HR330 | Sapphire Radeon 5670 | Corsair XMS2 4GB |
| Hard Drive | Optical Drive | OS | Monitor |
| OCZ Vertex 2 60GB + WD Green 1TB | 16x DVD/RW sata | Windows 7 x64 | HP w2207h 22-inch |
| Keyboard | Power | Case | Mouse |
| Comfort Curve Keyboard 2000 | Dell 305w Power Supply | Dell OptiPlex 745 Mini Tower | SideWinder X5 |
| Mouse Pad | |||
| Razer eXactMat Duo | |||
| View all | |||
|
Nope, it works pretty much the opposite of that. You have a program that wants to use 4 cores (or 2, 8, 12, whatever), but you only have 2 (or 1, 4, 6, etc). Hyperthreading splits your 2 real cores into 2 real and 2 virtual cores, so the program can run four threads. If you have 4 real cores you get 8 hyperthread, 6 real cores is 12 hyperthreaded, etc.
Real cores are better than virtual cores because, even though hyperthreading allows the real cores to run more efficiently, it's still no substitute for a an actual core. Compare the gflops of a hyperthreaded dual core and a non-hyperthreaded quad core and you'll see that the quad has a large processing advantange. |