Hyperthreading by itself is not likely to help you at all until developers actually use it. If you're into gaming, the one and only game that has ever supported hyperthreading is Quake3. Why? It's harder to code... and if done wrong, will run slower on anyone without hyperthreading or multiple CPUs. Most game developers think it's not worth the risk.

Also, bear in mind that while Hyperthreading is significantly faster for multiple processes, it is not multiple processors. Some calls can be done at the same time, some can't.

If you run a lot of apps at the same time, you might notice a difference. Otherwise, you won't notice a thing compared to a non-HT capable processor.

If, on the other hand, developers start seeing that people can get HyperThreaded CPUs at a low price (like now), they may start making some use of it... but right now, they don't.

 

Hyperthreading is great. But like Killer said, you won't notice really any difference unless the program uses it. I have a HT processor and it hasnt been slower or anything like some say it will if you enable it. So if you can get it go for it. It is not that much more expensive if at all.

 

Why not AMD? It's as good as Intel.

 

Maybe a bad experience? I had an AMD laptop and it worked charms for me. The is nothing wrong with AMD.

 

Could you use a HT-equipped processor with RDRAM? If not, then you'll have to go with DDR and probably a new motherboard.

 

Could you use a HT-equipped processor with RDRAM? If not, then you'll have to go with DDR and probably a new motherboard.

Yes, it is possible, but only if the motherboard that you are using has an 850E chipset (I think this is the only one). The other motherboards that use RDRAM do not have the FSB capable of using a HT processor.

 

Would it be better to use PC800 then instead of PC1066, so the RAM is in sync with the processor?

 

Would it be better to use PC800 then instead of PC1066, so the RAM is in sync with the processor?

uhhh, to tell you the truth I don't know. I believe I do remember reading that PC1066 isn't significantly faster than PC800, so it might be because of the situation that you mentioned.

 

Where does the 2MB cache really show any differance? Is it worth the price? And no, I'm not going for AMD

Err.. 2MB cache isn't a Hyperthreading thing. It's an Extreme Edition Processor thing. Those are very expensive and not worth the price.

Hyperthreading, the ability to "fake" a 2nd CPU along with other multithread refinements, is now standard equipment on most P4 processors. It's enabled by default, just leave it on and be happy.

 

Well, if you are a gamer, the Hyper-threading will do almost jack-shit to boost your frame rates, as gaming benchmarks show, so you'll only see major benefits in media encoding apps that are optimised for Hyper-threading technology.

 

I see, thanks for info. I'm buying a used Pc from a friend and I'm gonna basically move my best parts to that one. I guess I got mixed up on the cache thing. So, rephrasing, what would I gain from an increased cache? BTW, what I'm adressing here is video and music encoding

 

One benifit of getting an HT CPU, is that a lot of boards will only open up the dual-channel speed on your ram. For example, if you have 2x 512 DDR400 and a Northwood or a celeron, your memory will run at DDR266. Plop in an HT (they are all 800Mhz FSB) and your memory opens up to DDR400.

 

Hmm, so I benifit from an HT board evern if I don't have an enabled procesor?

 

For media encoding HT may help you, but it depends on the program and how you want to use your system. Right now the most significant benefit to a HT processor is the ability to run many stressful programs/processes at once. A good example of this is my HP printer which always eats up full CPU resources (and kernel resources at that - top priority) when printing (limitations of the parallel port). Previous machines I had would choke up whenever it was printing, and games would drop frames like flies, but not anymore on my current system.

As the video from THG shows, HT will be most useful when the system is put under stress. If you're into doing a lot of stressful CPU tasks (and encoding is, often times, a stressful task) and want improved performance (provided you have HT-optimized software) or want to use the computer for other things at the same time, then HT will be for you. If you don't run many heavy apps then you're better off with a single-threaded CPU (although HT won't hurt).

 

Since now you want to know what increased cache will get you, here you go:

Notice the difference between a celeron and a full Pentium? Or a Duron and Athlon? That difference is due to larger cache. However, after a certain point, you will end up with diminishing returns (2M may not be a whole lot better than 512k, but 512k is worlds better than 256k). This has to do with how the operating system uses the cache with multiple processes running. Hope that helps...

 

You must also realize that the increased cache on the Prescott chip is to compensate for the longer instruction pipeline. whereas a prescott with 1MB is better than a prescott with 512K, a prescott with 1mb is not always better than a Northwood with 512KB

 

You must also realize that the increased cache on the Prescott chip is to compensate for the longer instruction pipeline. whereas a prescott with 1MB is better than a prescott with 512K, a prescott with 1mb is not always better than a Northwood with 512KB

Doesn't the Prescott pull ahead of the Northwood around 3.6 GHz?

 

yeah, But in the lower speeds 2.4D and 2.8E you will find the NW does better, besides the only EE chip is a northwood. I read a very interesting and informative article on the move from the Northwood to the Prescott. Parts of it were very technical and I didn;t understand it, but for the most part it was a good read. I learned a lot from it. I will try to find the URL and post it if anyone is interested.

 

What is the D model? Is it a Prescott with less L2 cache?

 

the "D" is a northwood with less cache. I am currently running a 2.7C, Northwood 128k. I will be upgrading to a 2.8E - Prescott 1024KB. According to Intel, we will see the newest Prescott CPU and a roadmap pretty soon. Thats when I believe that the 2.8E will drop to around $150 or less.

 

the "D" is a northwood with less cache. I am currently running a 2.7C, Northwood 128k. I will be upgrading to a 2.8E - Prescott 1024KB. According to Intel, we will see the newest Prescott CPU and a roadmap pretty soon. Thats when I believe that the 2.8E will drop to around $150 or less.

i dont think that there are 128k northwoods, im right?



edit: doesnt "C" intel procesors have hyperthreading and 800FSB and 1mb L2 cache?

 

That's because he has a Northwood Celeron presumably, which has less cache.

 

WindHydra, since I'm gonna be reading alot articles and reviews, I'll give AMD a fair go What's latest model name anyway?
Demigod, long time no see!! :beer:
I guess this needs a bit more consideration....study time!!! So, if I want HT and speed @ 3GHz, should I take the prescot? Does northwood support HT? And the cache size....worth it?

This may be a bit off-topic so plz bear with me The fastest DDR is ........... (fill blank with number and brand)

 

I say just take the Northwood. The Prescotts tend to lag behind the Northwoods somewhat, plus they give off a lot of heat. They'll eventually replace the Northwood in the future but for now it's best to go with the P4 'C's.

 

The fastest DDR I have used as of yet is PC4500 (DDR566)
Alekse: The "C"s don't have a CPU with 1MB of L2, but they do have 800Mhz and HT. And the Northwood does come in a 128K flavor.