New tech to Double CPU speed
Take a look:
[quote] The chip inside your computer is about to get better at doing its job.
The world's largest chip maker Intel is introducing technology that tricks a computer into thinking it has two chips instead of one.
Called hyper-threading, the technology can speed up programs by up to 25%, says Intel.
Both Intel and its partner Microsoft are promoting the technology, hoping it will help to boost sales of computers and software. <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2480583.stm"; target="_blank">Link</a>
[quote] The chip inside your computer is about to get better at doing its job.
The world's largest chip maker Intel is introducing technology that tricks a computer into thinking it has two chips instead of one.
Called hyper-threading, the technology can speed up programs by up to 25%, says Intel.
Both Intel and its partner Microsoft are promoting the technology, hoping it will help to boost sales of computers and software. <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2480583.stm"; target="_blank">Link</a>
Comments
[ 11-16-2002: Message edited by: chych ]</p>
<strong>This has been out for a very long time... where have you been?
[ 11-16-2002: Message edited by: chych ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Caving, and no where nere a Computer.
[ 11-16-2002: Message edited by: Alpha Mac ]</p>
Hyperthreading worse the extra cost of transistors, even if MP configurations are more performant.
<strong>And it wipes the floor with anything Apple currently offers. At this rate it might be years before Jobs ever attempts another fake-off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hyperthreading wipes the floor...?! Did you even research this before making that statement? From what I've seen, it can be incrementally better or incrementally worse than the same processor w/o HT, depending on the application. Sometimes it is considerably worse. On high-performance game engines, it is essentially no improvement at all. Only on a particular synthetic benchmark did it actually show a considerable advantage (much like the original P4, itself actually). Perhaps, when more benchmarking articles come out showing more realistic multi-application/multitasking scenarios, we will get a better idea of the real advantages of the feature. As of yet, it really is still a curiosity in my book.
The Power Mac G4 DP 1.25 GHz wipes the floor with all but the very fast dual Athlon MPs and dual P4s. Take into account that Apple's bake-off tests use rotates, image resizing, blurs, sharpens, and other G4 strengths, the dual 1.25 GHz G4 would still come out on top in a bake-off.
This must be a medicinal purpose for you, right? This topic isn't even about your heroic 3 Ghz P4. It is about hyperthreading. Maybe you should post how great the 3 Gig P4 is in every topic? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That ought to be very gratifying for you.
[ 11-16-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Another page to reference. PS7Bench is platform agnostic. The suite of filters and actions were selected before Photoshop even got any SSE or AltiVec optimizations.
Interesting to see a 2x533 MHz G4 beating a 1800 MHz P4, huh...
I'm sure Apple would also use the also popular Cleaner Pro bake-off too.
<strong>Yes, it wipes the floor. Apple's top DP system struggles to keep up with 3.06Ghz Intel based systems. Gigahurts myths or not, cry about the way the benchmark was carried out if you need to, whatever gets you by... However, just about every major independent 3-d or video comparo between top macs and top Intels shows that Intel leads by a sizeable margin. Steve himself has not run a fake off in 2 years +, why do you think that is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Major reason why the Dell is much faster in AfterEffects isn't so much because of processor capability, but because of memory bandwidth. Given the right tasks, I bet a dual G4 system can wipe the proverbial floor. But when it comes to doing things that take up a lot of memory, the P4 system's huge memory bandwidth is really going to shine.
When the 970 shows up, it will have a larger memory bandwidth than the P4 which, incidentally, runs closer to the chip's clock speed, and thus data fetches from memory are going to scream.
7.2 GB/s theoretical memory bandwidth + Altivec = fast render times. The current G4 systems, I think, only have 2GB/sec. The P4 is in the 4 to 5 range.
Power5 is going to have SMT, so maybe that will trickle down to the 9xx series in a few years.
Topic: New tech to Double CPU speed
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Called hyper-threading, the technology can speed up programs by up to 25%, says Intel.
<hr></blockquote>
Since when does a 25% maximum improvement equal double the CPU speed?
The obvious counter to a big, hot, hyperthreaded chip is two (or more) smaller, cooler, single-threaded chips. That's what hyperthreading is trying to simulate, and it's not anywhere near as good as the real thing.
[ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: imacman287 ]</p>
1.) A platform that can take advantage with minimal programming effort. That means (to me) that a dev writes an app for a particular OS environment and then the OS takes over automatically using any and all resources available between processors in the most efficient way possible. OSX is supposed to be well on its way to this end.
2.) LOTS and LOTS of bandwidth from CPU to Memory and probably some dedicated bandwidth just between CPUs too.
A G4 could probably meet that criteria if it handled more FSB bandwidth, but it doesn't, errm...
When you compare PPC's and X86 from a power usage and heat dissapation perspective you see that a PPC based system actually has a legitimate shot at putting even 4 CPU's in a fairly conventional Mobo-PSU-case configuration. Anything with 4 P4's would cost a ton of money and be very big and very noisy. Two P4's could compete price-wise but they'd still be big hot and noisy. 2 Athlons? Same. 4? Same issues as other X86.
But there's that tiny matter of not enough bandwidth to even make the attempt worthwhile. It's so friggin aggravating cause the PPC is otherwise very adept for this computing paradigm.
Testing suggests that (ATM) hyperthreading is every bit as good as the "real thing" and then some, if the current dual G4 is the "real thing". A dual G4 without the crippling memory restrictions? Well that would be another matter, if we could ever get to buy one.
<strong>If u need to run windows software, u use a PC. If u need to use Mac software, use a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>And what of cross-platform software?
This gives greater incentive to choose PC over Mac. THAT'S the point. If this technology proves worthy, it widens the performance gap between PCs and Macs.
If you spend all day working in After Effects, the way the system and other apps interact doesn't matter to you. You're going to want the computer that's fastest at rendering the video, not the computer with the prettier interface. The After Effects UI is practically identically on PC and Mac. The same goes for all the other cross-platform software.