[Disillusion]

So Hyperthreading is basically just a normal CPU with an extra "logical" core. From what I read, CPUs are never utilized 100% and hyperthreading fools the operating system into thinking there are two cores, forcing another programs data through the CPU so that it can actually process bits of each programs at once.



So, my question is, do CPUs like newer (K8) AMDs and Core 2 Duos use better technology so that they are actually 100% utilized now or what?

Was "hyperthreading" just a gimmick to help Intel sell more P4s? Was it just a "fix" for the 100% CPU utilization problem?

Does anyone understand what I'm trying to figure out here?

[The General]

No, Hyperthreading was just a pointless gimmick to sell more P4's. Now it is just something that confuses people into thinking that their dual-core sucks because it doesn't have Hyperthreading.

I wish Hyperthreading never existed.

[Disillusion]

Originally posted by The General
No, Hyperthreading was just a pointless gimmick to sell more P4's. Now it is just something that confuses people into thinking that their dual-core sucks because it doesn't have Hyperthreading.

I wish Hyperthreading never existed.

You would assume that these newer processors like AMDs and Core 2 Duos would have good enough architecture that they would actually be 100% utilized and completely filled up, right?

[The General]

Hyperthreading's entire purpose is to make the CPU seem like two. It was supposed to help with multitasking. There is no reason to have Hyperthreading, it, in most cases, lowered performance (I use one at work, it it noticably slower with HT on), and on top of that, if you ACTUALLY have two cores which is great for multitasking, why would you even need HT?

[Disillusion]

Originally posted by The General
Hyperthreading's entire purpose is to make the CPU seem like two. It was supposed to help with multitasking. There is no reason to have Hyperthreading, it, in most cases, lowered performance (I use one at work, it it noticably slower with HT on), and on top of that, if you ACTUALLY have two cores which is great for multitasking, why would you even need HT?

Yes, but if you look at the image above, it shows that a normal single core CPU isn't being fully utilized. Notice the empty blocks. Then it shows multitasking where it will switch back and forth between programs. Then it shows HT, where it takes a both programs and fills the space that wasn't full before.

Is this true? Do CPUs really do this? Do they really have that much empty "space" when processing a thread of data?

[tommyboy123x]

to answer the more broad question, are the CPU's utilized 100% today, my vote is no, and they never will be. There is always a way to make something more optimized... remember when those Pentium Optimized Systems came out.... heh

as lame as it sounds, i think it's like the graph 1/x, how 0, meaning 100% efficiency, is the X axis, AKA the asymptote (spelling?) It will get REALLY close, but never 100%

[WorldIndustries]

People get AMD's HT and Intel's HT confused... AMD has Hypertransport, not Hyperthreading, and it's completely different...

[TheMajor]

Originally posted by WorldIndustries
People get AMD's HT and Intel's HT confused... AMD has Hypertransport, not Hyperthreading, and it's completely different...

Hypertransport = HTT; not HT.

[TheMajor]

HT vs non-HT

http://www.tomshardware.com/site/dow...bmit.html?id=5

[The General]

^Broken link.