Skip to comments.
Intel claims hyperthreading produces 900%+ boost
The Inquirer ^
| December 6, 2002
| Mike Magee
Posted on 12/06/2002 2:54:57 AM PST by JameRetief
Truly remarkable results gobsmack us
A SHARP EYED contributor to
Ace's Hardware Forum has noticed that Intel is making some truly remarkable claims for the 3.06GHz Pentium 4.
A demo on its site it requires Flash to view compares a spreadsheet calculation. That takes five minutes 39.9 seconds on a 3.06GHz Pentium 4 without hyperthreading while with hyperthreading, Intel claims it takes 35.58 seconds. [ Actually, if you see the demo, it is supposed to take the non-hyperthreaded P4 an even longer 6 minutes 15 seconds. (5:40 + :35) ]
This is a remarkable feat and leads us to believe that hyperthreading is better than anyone could possibly have anticipated.
Indeed, with the performance of your processor boosted by over 900%, truly no-one should be without one.
You can run the demo from this Intel page, while the Ace's thread starts here. µ
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: benchmarking; demo; hyperthreading; intel; techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
This is simply unbelievable. I would not have believed Intel would have put up such a sham "benchmark" if I hadn't seen the demo myself. *tsk* *tsk*
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; rdb3
Marketing Department Gone Wild, ping.
To: JameRetief
To: pseudogratix
To: JameRetief
That's some calculation.
5
posted on
12/06/2002 5:09:55 AM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
Is a processor chip with hyperthreading worth the extra price tag or is it just all hype??
To: goldstategop
"Is a processor chip with hyperthreading worth the extra price tag or is it just all hype??"
Sounds like a load of "hypermarketing" to me...
7
posted on
12/06/2002 6:54:35 AM PST
by
error99
To: goldstategop
I think a 9X boost in performance would merit the front page of every newspaper in the world. Something is amiss with the claim.
8
posted on
12/06/2002 6:54:37 AM PST
by
js1138
To: error99
Well, some tasks are extremely well suited to parallelism. Most are not :)
To: JameRetief
If it can improve performance on ANY task by 900% then it will have a significant impact on many others, though not necessarily by the same proportion.
You would be surprised how much can be "parallelized" -- most software is designed for serial processing because that is how most programmers have been trained to think. But the number of tasks that an ordinary computer does that are ESSENTIALLY serial is small.
I agree with you though, that cooking up a benchmark that maximizes the performance improvement can be very misleading.
Cool screen name. It's been 15 years since I read those books, I'll bet a bunch more have come out since then.
To: js1138
"I think a 9X boost in performance would merit the front page of every newspaper in the world. Something is amiss with the claim" I sent the link to this to my son. He wrote back:
"HyperThreading at this point is mainly Hype...aptly named. The applications need to also support HT. Here's a blurb from a comparison site:
"Benchmarking the Pentium 4-3.06 GHz is a very difficult proposition, as its main benefits are easily apparent using standard performance tests. Unless a program supports multithreading, then any performance benefits are extremely hard to quantify. The benchmarks that do support multiple threads showed some serious gains, while standard single-threaded tests were on-par with a 3.06 GHz CPU. The more ethereal advantages are when actually using a HT-enabled system, and multi-tasking with resource-hungry applications. While the numerical results are not consistent enough to publish, we found speed jumps of 5-15% when performing duties like simultaneous MPEG and MP3 encoding."
Now the kicker:
Intel 3.06GHz cpu: $710
Fastest AMD XP 2700 / 333MHz fsb: 323"
FWIW
To: JameRetief
Meant to ping you, but your screen name wouldn't take the first time around.
To: Eastbound
5-15% is a pretty good benefit. Most high-end applications are multi-threaded -- Photoshop, Autocad, any professional graphics or multi-media editing program.
13
posted on
12/06/2002 7:40:47 AM PST
by
js1138
To: JameRetief
I read hyperthreading gives an average 20% boost. That's it and you'll pay for it. The 3.06 price is $709. Almost twice what the next one down is, the 2.8 at $377.
14
posted on
12/06/2002 7:44:49 AM PST
by
dennisw
To: JameRetief
Ah yes, the "arbitrary and creative truth" that is marketing got to love it. Sorry guys, while hyperthreading is decent technology, and can certainly help with tasks that can be broken into independent seperate non dependent parts, 900% increase? Uh... No.
To: dennisw
Intel's first string CPU always cost $700. This is to get the big bucks from the rich and desparate. I always buy a couple of notches down. But in the last two years, I'v bought nothing but AMD.
16
posted on
12/06/2002 7:49:42 AM PST
by
js1138
To: dennisw
It would be smart of them to put this on thier Xeon chips, anyone running a dual or Quad CPU Server would be would have 4x's the processing speed of anything out there on the X86 base
To: js1138
Intel's first string CPU always cost $700.True. It's in Dell, Gateway etc but I'll bet they only pay half that $719. If you build your own you would be a fool to pay for the best Intel. I have two home built AMD computers. I will upgrade one with the 2100+ Athlon (~$87) which will be more than enough for my purposes
18
posted on
12/06/2002 7:58:25 AM PST
by
dennisw
To: JameRetief
Finally, something that'll run Battlefield 1942 well!
19
posted on
12/06/2002 8:28:23 AM PST
by
gura
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson