I know WinEQ2 supports the new Intel Duo 2 Core CPUs and all, but does it also handle HT technology okay? Reason being, I'm trying make my gaming hydra box last as long as possible. It currently uses a P4 2.8GHz CPU but doesn't have HT technology on the CPU (the mobo does support it, it's written in the manual and has a BIOS option.) I'm thinking about picking up a P4 Prescott 3.4GHz CPU for 100 clams and trying that out.
thanks!
ps. my specs on hydra box for others. Running 3 EQ instances, 2GB Ram. all instances are as stripped down as graphically possible. Memory usage in Vald is around 450 - 470MB per session. Using a X1600 AGP 8.0 card w/ 512MB ram. Never ever run out of graphics memory always tapping out system ram however. CPU is staying PEGGED at 95 to 100% CPU usage while in Vald. Comes way back down in other instances. Mobo does go up to 4GB ram but want to try CPU upgrade first and buy 4GB ram at around 60$ a stick second. Had spec'd out a new system on NewEgg for around 1k but that would tap into my 'whores & beer money' stash and that wouldn't be good.
pps. Whoever said that mobo BIOS's are now 'hiding' AGP Aperture settings is correct. This GigaByte mobo required you to press Ctrl+F1 while in BIOS to see the Advanced Chipset settings. Classic. Wasted an hour easy looking for that shit!
Hyper Threading technology (older CPUs question.)
Moderators: Lavish Software Team, Moderators
To actually answer the OP's question (Is that allowed?!?): Yes, processor affinity is doled out exactly the same for HT cpus as it is for dual cores, so you'll be supported. Hydra gaming is certainly one (if not the only) situation in which you *will* see a marked increase in performance with HT, so I can't agree 100% with fearless, but know that those chips aren't without problems.
First of all, those Prescott chips run HOT. If your rig's already dated, and the fans are getting a bit sluggish etc, chances are you're already pushing the envelope here. Add to that the fact that those chips were popular at a time when a lot of mobo manufacturers were concentrating more on innovations to the north bridge than on supporting the CPU bells and whistles and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Find the exact model of your mobo and do some web searches for it...sure, it supports HT, but just how well does it support it? Keep a careful eye out for reports of poor HT support or the North Bridge overheating or breaking down under the strain.
If you already have a decent copper heatsync or other cooling system (ie. something above and beyond the $12 aluminum job they usually gave out with those chips), a motherboard with a fan or at least a small sync on the bridge and with BIOS updates from later than mid 2004 when they finally got the kinks worked out of HT, then you've probably got yourself a peppy little upgrade for $100. Otherwise, save your clams.
First of all, those Prescott chips run HOT. If your rig's already dated, and the fans are getting a bit sluggish etc, chances are you're already pushing the envelope here. Add to that the fact that those chips were popular at a time when a lot of mobo manufacturers were concentrating more on innovations to the north bridge than on supporting the CPU bells and whistles and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Find the exact model of your mobo and do some web searches for it...sure, it supports HT, but just how well does it support it? Keep a careful eye out for reports of poor HT support or the North Bridge overheating or breaking down under the strain.
If you already have a decent copper heatsync or other cooling system (ie. something above and beyond the $12 aluminum job they usually gave out with those chips), a motherboard with a fan or at least a small sync on the bridge and with BIOS updates from later than mid 2004 when they finally got the kinks worked out of HT, then you've probably got yourself a peppy little upgrade for $100. Otherwise, save your clams.
The idea is that when you have an expensive operation (say a cache miss or data retrieval, probably the two most common) there's no reason not to be running other code while the CPU waits around for the mobo to signal it has the data ready. The problem is you need even more logic to determine when this happens and exactly what "other" code to run, and early attempts like the Xeon chips actually tended to slow down due to all the queue-handling going on. The prescott queuing is pretty advanced though, and you really can see 20-30% performance over the standard chips under the right conditions.
Though they're often compared, hyper-threads vs true dual core is really apples and oranges. It's just that providing a "fake" 2nd CPU was a convenient way to figure out what to run during the extra cycles...had the true multi-core chips not started to appear right after HT came out, people would probably view the issue differently; and while I've never really dived into it I assume that even on a real dual core design each core is doing something "hyper-thread-like" with those extra cycles instead of just throwing them away.
Though they're often compared, hyper-threads vs true dual core is really apples and oranges. It's just that providing a "fake" 2nd CPU was a convenient way to figure out what to run during the extra cycles...had the true multi-core chips not started to appear right after HT came out, people would probably view the issue differently; and while I've never really dived into it I assume that even on a real dual core design each core is doing something "hyper-thread-like" with those extra cycles instead of just throwing them away.