Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 16:35:08 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 18:13:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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_. Good point. The dual P3 is all IDE, while the new P4 has SCSI drives. I gues there are other factors that could influence reponsiveness. Turning HT off would be one way to test this. But why mess with a new PC before the weekend? :) PK
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.