|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bill,
Both AMD and Intel have hyperthreading. I don't but my understanding
is it is pretty much the same as one processor being able to do what
dual processors do. Needless to say we all know it can't be as good
as two processors but think what it is like if you have a dual
processor with hyperthreading. I can tell you my old dual processor
is terrific even today. It is dual 850 PIII but only 100 mhz front
side bus. When I work on 2.8 to 3. Ghz single processor machines that
I have tweaked as much as I can they still can't do what my old unit
does.
So yes I'm sure hyperthreading is a huge benefit. I know dual
processors are a huge benefit. If I was going to buy a new machine
today it would be a dual processor and with hyperthreading. Not
necessarily a Xeon but close and probably AMD. I go back and forth
between AMD and Intel. I can't remember what AMD calls there
hyperthreading but they have the same thing. AMD started making
better CPUs many years ago. The are simply past Intel no matter what
anyone says. So I would say if you are a buy a new box every year or
so guy then get AMD with their version of hyperthreading or second get
Intel with hyperthreading. If you keep equipment like I do then go
with dual processors. The dual processor is better but you can buy
two units for what one costs. So those that want that 5 ghz machine
will have a 3 now and a 5 next year. I would have a 3 dual now and a
dual 7 in three or four years.
Oh my car is old too, but I'm not going to upgrade it. Where are
those car thieves when you need them.
Jimmy
Friday, October 29, 2004, 3:30:07 PM, you wrote:
Cac> Jimmy and O-list:
Cac> A computer salesman once told me that the Intel -
Cac> hyperthreading design makes the single chip work like a dual
Cac> processor. He may not be telling the whole truth; but how would
Cac> the two features compare in performance? I know dual processor
Cac> systems are more expensive.
Cac>
Cac> As long as my CPU usage is running below 50% during heavy
Cac> processing, I think I should be OK without worrying about
Cac> upgrades. Right?
Cac> Thanks.
Cac> Bill
Cac>
Cac>
Cac>
Cac> In a message dated 10/29/2004 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight
Cac> Time, jhsnowden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Cac> Used Trash 80, Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD and they all worked
Cac> fine. Well as fine as Windows would work. I have one dual processor
Cac> Dell with Intel chips now and a computer I built with a single AMD
Cac> chip. I keep several computers running for friends that all have
Cac> Intel chips in Dells. The AMD works great. My nearly six year old
Cac> dual processor has newer chips in it now but it still works great. As
Cac> good as all those newer units and better than most of them. If I
Cac> bought a new machine today it would probably be a dual Intel or a dual
Cac> processor AMD. Most likely the AMD. So what I am saying is they are
Cac> both great but dual processor is better no matter if it is AMD or
Cac> Intel. It is Windows that stinks.
Cac>
--
Best regards,
Jimmy mailto:jhsnowden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|