FWIW, the Intel Atom 330 CPU is dual-core with hyperthreading, so Windows has 4
threads going. At 1.6GHz per core, the Atom 330 is a mighty mite. (Not paid
for by Intel, who certainly would approve of this message)... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:05 +1030, "Fred" wrote:


"Daddy" wrote in message
...
See below.

William R. Walsh wrote:
Hi!

What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?

I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
everything needed to perform as a single CPU.

You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
Each processor there can function on its own.

In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
between cores.

Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
demand while they work on the 'real deal'?

Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
but that is not the case.

The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
assigned to a different task.

William

Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.

By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
arrive.

FYI hyper-threading technology was dropped for the existing core 2 range of
processors but has returned with the upcoming core i7 processors.
Nehalem will be four core processors implementing hyper-threading, so will
be capable of simutaneously handling 8 threads. Handy for those users
heavily into multi-tasking.
Of course to take advantage of the newer processors a new motherboard and
RAM will be required.
Perhaps software vendors will write programs in the future that can take
advantage of all those threads.

"Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel Desktop x86-64 processors. Core i7
is the first Intel family to be released using the Intel Nehalem
microarchitecture and is the successor to the Intel Core 2 family"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3


It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending
the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real
thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make
my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.

Am I just being silly?

Horses for courses. If you are into games a faster dual core processor
usually beats a slower quad core.
Some worstation type programs (video rendering, photoshop, etc) benefit from
quad core.