On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 13:57 +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Gilboa Davara <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In my experience (running a kernel based packet inspection software), HT > > on Xeon 55xx yields around 15-20% performance benefit. (YMMV, of-course) > > YMMV is the operative term here. > > Shachar is right: the main problem with HT is increased cache > contention for unrelated processes (causing "cache thrashing"). This > may degrade performance for memory-intensive applications. This is the > principal reason why many people switched HT off.
Of-course. Again, I suggested that he'll benchmark his application with and w/o HT before making a decision as the HT implementation in Core 7 based CPUs has improved dramatically. > Can you even buy a computer with just one CPU/core today? As weird as it sounds, yep. Intel has ATOM, embedded Core (Mostly under the Celeron M moniker). AMD has Sempron CPUs, etc. Per my example, I could just as well compare a dual Xeon E5502 (2 x 2 core) to a single underclocked Core i7 CPU or and Phenom X4 to an Opteron 23xx. But I preferred the old CPUs as I actually benchmarked the two options. (Using my own application, dual socket, single core Opteron was ~20-30% faster) - Gilboa _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
