Originally Posted by Domino
No its not. Hyperthreading has no relation to actual cores. It is thread management, which is not related to an actual lane. In fact, based on your analogy, hyperthreading is more like 0.85 cores when the going gets tough.
I wasn't trying to say HT was related to an actual psychical core, simply trying to relate how HT acts as far as performance is concerned. It can be as high as 50%(1.5 cores per se) or possibly 85% as you stated, if the code is very sloppy and HT can be used to its fullest. Of course we typically only see 10-15% and sometimes even less.
I was only trying to shut the people up saying BD will still fail if it takes 8 "cores" to beat Intel's 4. Both companies are not using a normal, run of the mill core anymore. Both are using different tactics to beef up, what we would typically call a core, to increase the performance of said core. Your .85 core numbers make the point I was trying to make more valid, ironically. With HT on, if each core is 1.85 cores in terms of speed then it is perfectly valid to compare that to each AMD module which is like 1.7-1.75 cores in terms of speed. Only difference is, I hope at least, AMD's 1.75 cores will always perform like 1.75 cores whereas Intel's can fluctuate from 1.85 all the way down to 1.0 or sub 1.0 when HT isn't effective.
Again though, I know you cannot directly relate HT with extra cores or even relate HT to AMD's module approach, they are two totally different approaches and work completely different. I was trying to give them both a relative core count based on speed increases from each approach. I wish I could write it out more clearly, but finding it hard to get what I am thinking from my brain to the keyboard
As long as the prices are in the same bracket, it shouldn't matter anyway though.Edited by Strat79 - 3/17/11 at 10:58pm