PCworld.com have posted their article looking @ Intel's new Hyperthreading technology. they tested 3 3.06gHZ Hyperthreading enabled systems and for good measure they tested the P4's with HT against a P4 2.8gHZ , P4 2.53gHZ . Dual 2.8gHZ Xeon and an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ system! Here's a byte.
On our PC WorldBench 4 test suite, hyperthreading produced little positive effect--as we expected given that the multiprocessor-aware OS imposes a performance penalty because it requires additional resources to run (see " Test Center: Notes From the Lab"), and PC WorldBench 4 uses many standard office apps that can't take real advantage of hyperthreading when run singly. The Athlon XP system scored 130, besting all three P4 PCs as well as the dual-Xeon unit. In fact, the score for each P4 system was the same or slightly worse with hyperthreading turned on. The Falcon suffered the biggest drop, from 127 with the feature disabled to 121 with it enabled. Also, with hyperthreading two of the three 3.06-GHz systems scored 7 to 8 percent lower than the average of five previously tested P4 systems running at 2.53 GHz (121) and of six at 2.8 GHz (123).
Two CPUs in One?
On our PC WorldBench 4 test suite, hyperthreading produced little positive effect--as we expected given that the multiprocessor-aware OS imposes a performance penalty because it requires additional resources to run (see " Test Center: Notes From the Lab"), and PC WorldBench 4 uses many standard office apps that can't take real advantage of hyperthreading when run singly. The Athlon XP system scored 130, besting all three P4 PCs as well as the dual-Xeon unit. In fact, the score for each P4 system was the same or slightly worse with hyperthreading turned on. The Falcon suffered the biggest drop, from 127 with the feature disabled to 121 with it enabled. Also, with hyperthreading two of the three 3.06-GHz systems scored 7 to 8 percent lower than the average of five previously tested P4 systems running at 2.53 GHz (121) and of six at 2.8 GHz (123).
Two CPUs in One?
