Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU

[Martin Cracauer]

Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400: 
> 
> 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?

It is the real thing, at least when it comes to AMD64 and
Netburst-based Intel dual-cores.  Every core has a full set of own
caches just like dual CPU.  Yonah (dual-core Pentium-M) has a shared
L2 cache.

I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939 socket systems against dual
940 socket systems here:
http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html

In practice, if you compare socket 939 dual-core and 940 dual-CPU
there is a little more.  In highend mainboard a dual 940 board will
have one memory bank per CPU (which is pretty useless performance-wise
for general-purpose applications).  Socket 939 systems can have faster
RAM (a little less useless) but are limited to 4 GB and there is some
BWCing to get ECC.  CPUs are limited to 2.6 GHz with the FX-60.
Socket 940 single-core CPUs can be had up to 2.8 GHz.

Martin
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer at cons.org>   http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go, today.      http://www.freebsd.org/