Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU

Andrew P. infofarmer at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 10:06:25 PST 2006

On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy at hub.org> wrote:
> I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
> a step back) ... but, is how does it rate?  I know that HyperThreading is
> definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?

There is extensive evidence (google for that, please), that
HT is even slower than a single core in quite a few applications.
Moreover, the whole HT implementation has been shown to
be a security risk. In the near future intel is going to spend $1.9bn
on its new marketing campaign. If you wanna be part of it,
buy their CPU, half of the money will be in your nearest billboard.

Dual-core is a new, and a very smart concept, which is exactly
equal to a dual-cpu configuration in terms of performance per
core - plus it provides a huge cut down on power consumption,
and a theoretically hugely faster interconnection between the
cores (they are physically many times closer).

By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list