Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 22:08:15 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 00:31:38, Charles Worthington wrote: >Oh and i also believe that if AMD had the technology or the research funds to >have invented hyperthreading technology...they would have. it doesnt take a You're making some statements out of absolute ignorance here. First of all, Intel didn't invent "hyperthreading" technology. Nor do they own exclusive rights to such technology - there's no legal issue preventing AMD from implementing something like it in their processors. Second, for the past several years, AMD has produced more patents than Intel has, despite a R&D budget several times lower than Intel's. What does that say about Intel's "technology or research funds"? The P4 has notoriously bad IPC compared to other recent x86 processors. You could say that a big reason for adding hyperthreading is to ameliorate this condition. I.e., the addition of hyperthreading brings the IPC up to a more respectable level, though it's still somewhat lower than that of the Athlon. Without hyperthreading, all the P4 has going for it is a high clockrate. The P4 _needs_ hyperthreading to keep its performance advantage. >rocket scientist to see that two threads are better than one for multiple >applications. And 4 threads are better than 2...What's your point?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.