Author: Peter Stayne
Date: 19:42:51 07/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
Upon further reading, my assumption is incorrect, but the findings of single-threaded apps getting a boost still seems to be true. Hence the three links below and choice quotes: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-12.html http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1746&p=6 On which I quote: Fundamentally we still only have one CPU and one set of execution units, so if the OS dispatches two threads that contend for identical resources in the CPU then HT could reduce performance. In the earlier versions of Hyper-Threading, there were some pretty significant performance drops in desktop applications with it enabled. Luckily through revision after revision of the technology and through the addition of a few new components (flip back a few pages to see what's new) the vast majority of applications will see a performance increase or no performance loss at all http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000332 Quote: It is quite remarkable how almost every single threaded benchmark still got a small performance boost from HyperThreading, between 1 and 5%. This shows that HyperThreading has matured as it almost never decreased performance, as it did in the first hyperthreaded Xeons. On July 07, 2003 at 21:35:04, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 07, 2003 at 19:15:35, Peter Stayne wrote: > >>Nah, Daniel is right. Even non-SMP programs do gain a slight advantage in speed >>with HT enabled, though minimal, benchmarks have shown this. > >Which benchmarks? I won't believe this until I see it. Operating systems take a >fraction of 1% of your CPU to do housekeeping when you're running a chess >program, and only a fraction of that could be offloaded to a 2nd CPU. > >-Tom
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.