Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 17:42:41 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 02:21:52, Charles Worthington wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 01:08:15, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>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? > >Actually the point is really simple...hyperthreading produces a boost in speed >and an extra thread to run background applications faster. If AMD has the >know-how to incorporate hyperthreading technology into their processors they >would be foolish not to economically and performance-wise....The truth of the Please explain why Intel didn't make Hyperthreading run 4 threads, instead of just 2. Use the same reasoning to explain why AMD doesn't use Hyperthreading at all. The most likely explanation is that AMD doesn't think their current processors will benefit very much from hyperthreading, so it's not worth it. The P4 does, however, benefit a lot from it, so it's used. >matter is....they cant do it and maintain a bargain basement price for their >products...and in all reality...I'm not 100% sure they have the know how or else >they could be marketing a high end hyperthreading chip to compete with the >xeon...or maybe they just don't want that extra money? AMD is, and has been for quite some time, concentrating almost all their resources on Opteron. If it had anything to do with lack of 'know-how', Intel would already be leading by a huge margin in performance, given their near-infinite resources relative to AMD. Being able to keep up with Intel in the performace race for so long with so much less in the way or resources speaks volumes about the excellence of AMD's engineering and R&D processes.
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.