I enabled hyper threading (HT) on my computer yesterday, and I have noticed some increase in the computer as a whole. But I was wondering what the pros and cons of HT are? I tried looking around for them, but I had no luck finding a straight answer. I enabled it on an intel Pentium 4 3.06GHZ Northwood processor, with a 531mhz FSB
Depends on what programs/games/etc you're using. Windows 7 64bit with new games should finely take advantage of this. Windows SE with DOS games will run slower. Not too noticeable, really.
its intel's first attempt at competing with AMD's dual cores, its pretty pathetic. true dual core is better.
It did increase the FPS in some of the games that I play, and applications open faster, I haven't noticed any hinderance
Fail. Intel came out with a duel core processor before AMD. But they did licence AMD's duel code support which lets it run in 32 or 64 bit mode. HT is good though. It doesn't really increse the power of a processor but it splits its single core into two cores in order to run more efficently.
Really? Thats odd. In studying for comptia exams so i'll just pull what the book says. [Comptia A+ AIO study guide, sixth edition] 'Intel won the race for the first duel-core processor with the pentium D line or processors. The pentium D is simply two later generation pentium 4's molded onto the same chip with each cpu using its own cache althought they do share the same fsb.' But amd won the race for tri core processors because. as far as i know, intel never bothered to develop a tri core and instead went straight to a quad core.
Thats the same processor as my old one, I thought it had good performance for an old processor it ran almost all new games ok.
I got an AMD dual core at launch more or less, intel had nothing to compete. Then came hyperthreading. Then came intel's native dual core. There was never a race for tri core because its just a bad quad core wafer so they disable the bad core and sell as tri core. It improves yields.
Hmm... Well i'd call bullshit on the dual core since i pulled my information from a reliable book but i think i'll check wikipedia for the release dates. Wikipedia proves it... Intel released their dual core processor a week before AMD, but AMD's dual core was considered to be superior. As for the tri core... Seems about right.
First off, you can't really trust what wikipedia says 100% of the time. Also, Loony lives in the UK, so the intel dual core may have been released later than the AMD dual core processors where he lives.
Eh, that might be why. But in this case i trust wikipedia because it confirms what was stated in my comptia study book.
