| Iceman 2004-11-16, 8:45 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:08:09 -0600, Ranando King wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The main reason I didn't touch the IHT performance issues is because I'm
> making what might be a terrible assumption: that the Niagara chip will be
> using cores with truely "parallel thread" processing. IHT isn't quite that,
> which is the reason it suffers such performance hits for software not
> specifically designed to handle it. Also, the fact that you can enable HT on
> SMP makes it somewhat ok to ignore those issues for this lopsided
> comparison. Now... if we ignore the IHT features altogether as well as
> Niagara's parallel threads, we basically end up comparing a single processor
> to an 8 processor SMP system without the SMP bottlenecks. Under such
> conditions, the statements I made still hold. There isn't that much work to
> be done to support such a system. Current day applications will still
> benefit greatly from the decreased process/cpu core ratio.
>
> R. King
>
> "Iceman" <1c3m4n@chi-mafia.org> wrote in message
> news:1tit28p7sc7o7.dlg@icepick.org...
> that
> altered
> handle
> going
> chip
> the
> simultaneously.
> we've
> include
> count
> bandwidth,
> cores,
> 16
> competition
> between
> the
> look
> is
> was
> of
OK, but perhaps you should have stated that up front as this thread was
about HT. HT is here and here to stay until the CPU is changed to something
better.
What you wrote was interesting, especially as I am not impressed with the
direction Intel is going. If Linux goes more mainstream and is a worthy
competitor to the windows based system in sheer numbers then perhaps they
wont worry so much about backwards compatibility which is the current
albatross hung on their neck.
|