|Originally posted by aussie
ixian short of you working for a chip maker or developing VHDL constructs or being able to design motherboards or writing operating systems (I have done all four), I would suggest your back your posts with FACTS, links and actual data rather than make wild claims.
I would suggest you take it easy. Nothing like an uber-geek with an axe to grind dropping in on a thread and bombing around the old 30-year computer resume. Had a bad day did we?
My second response would be, what the hell
does Sun, Transputers, DEC Alphas, etc have to do with what we are talking about, which is Hyperthreading on a Sager notebook being used for typical desktop applications? Am I supposed to be impressed because you throw every company involved in CPU development into the argument? What's the point of this, other than to obfuscate the issue at hand?
Speaking of which, what does Occam
have to do with any of this? Please stop building Strawman arguments.
You can read all you want about Hyper-Threading and it's benefits, real and imagined, atAnandtech
in one of several interesting documents. I'd put any of them up against your qualifications. And what's their conclusion? That desktop users running office, games, and other basic apps aren't going to notice any difference with Hyperthreading on or not. They go into a lot more detail than me, so have at it.
Which really brings me back to my original point: Hyperthreading is a nice technology that doesn't hurt, certainly, but for most stuff you're likely to do on you Sager notebook, you probably aren't going to notice. Check out the direct comparisons between systems with it enabled and not and draw your own conclusions. Allow me to quote from the last part of their main article:
|Although we all got extremely excited when Hyper-Threading was rumored to be on all current Pentium 4/Xeon cores, it will not be the free performance for all that we had wished for. The reasons are simple and the technology has a long way to go before we'll be able to see it and take advantage of it on all platforms, including desktops, but with developer support it definitely can turn out to be a very powerful ally of the Pentium 4, Xeon and future generation Intel processors.
Pretty much what I already said.
I'm not slamming Hyperthreading or saying it's worthless. I never did that in the first place - you more or less put those words in my mouth.
As for XP Home, you are correct, you got me. As I discovered in eWeek, the lead product manager for XP corrected this misconception:
|"Windows XP Home Edition does in fact support hyperthreading," said Greg Sullivan, lead product manager for Microsoft Windows XP. "While Windows XP Home does not support multiple physical processors, it does support the multiple virtual or logical CPUs enabled by Intel's P4 and hyperthreading."
I made the same mistake everyone does (it happens) - assuming lack of support for Dual-Processing systems meant a lack of support for Hyperthreading. Obviously MS and Intel had a few talks about making sure this new feature worked in both versions.
Now, let's please stick to the discussion at hand. And btw, yes I own a HT system - several, in fact.