Re: Hypertherading

From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, pluknet <pluknet_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> From: pluknet <pluknet_at_gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Hypertherading
> To: "Scott Long" <scottl_at_samsco.org>
> Cc: "Ollivier Robert" <roberto_at_keltia.freenix.fr>, freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org
> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 7:13 AM
> 2009/5/7 Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org>:
> > Ollivier Robert wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/05/2009 10:17, Bob Bishop wrote:
> >>>
> >>> AFAICS the reference doesn't support that
> conclusion at all.
> >>
> >> Nehalem CPUs'HT feature is significantly
> different from the one present in
> >> previous P4 CPUs.  Apparently, Nehalem's HT
> works.  Memory bandwidth being
> >> much higher helps too.
> >>
> >
> > I keep here the anecdote that "it's
> better".  Is there a good reference
> > somewhere that describes exactly how it works?
> >
> > Scott
> 
> Hi.
> 
> There is a number of synthetic, low-level, and h/level
> application
> nehalem tests flowing around in Russian.
> Also, not far ago (31.12.2008 18:09) Intel has published
> the Intel
> Optimization Reference Manual for x32/64.
> (see ch. 8). It might be useful.
> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/manuals/248966.pdf.
> 

Ah, Intel says that its higher priced processors are better than
their lower priced processors. There's evidence you can take to the
bank.

Barney
Received on Fri May 08 2009 - 10:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:47 UTC