Henrik K wrote: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: >> Henrik K wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: >> >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores >> >> that >> >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' >> >> cores, or >> >> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a >> >> good many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work >> >> on the same >> >> data in cache. Else, those HT's did just enough extra work to >> >> block cache contents more than anything else. >> > >> > I really doubt there's HT involved in a recent looking 8 core 16GB >> > machine.. >> >> Why not? I have a couple of brandnew Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) systems >> with 8Gb RAM - they have 1 physical CPU with 4 cores and HT = >> 8 "cores". And they've got room for more RAM :-) > > Ah a comeback.. I guess it's atleast better than the P4 stuff?
Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's exactly the same technology. (I haven't done in exhaustive tests though). /Per Jessen, Zürich
