Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:13:12 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 09:26:41, Peter Kasinski wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 03:32:44, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 22:07:12, P. Massie wrote: >> >>>I'm not an expert on HT, but based on what I've read about it, and what I know >>>about how computers work I suspect it will be somewhat better than a "normal" >>>processor for this, but not nearly as good as a true dual. My suggestion would >>>be a dual AMD or Xeon. >> >>Actually, any sort of stuttering/unusability you get from multitasking on one >>CPU is because of a poor scheduling algorithm in your operating system (or at >>least one that leaves room for improvement). Because HT presents one processor >>as two to the OS, that scheduling problem goes away. It would not surprise me if >>HT chips were dramatically more responsive (although not that much faster) when >>multitasking, although I'm not saying this is a certainty. I have never used a >>HT system myself. >> >>-Tom > >Indeed, this continues to be my main observation based on the comparison btw P4 >3.06GHz and a dual P3-933. Not the raw speed, but responsiveness (under W2k). > >PK I have quad everythings here, from quad pentium-pros to quad xeon 700's. _all_ run very responsively under heavy load. But _all_ use SCSI drives. We have a few duals with IDE and they are _dogs_.
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.