If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
hyperthreading CPU benchmark joke
I tried this benchmark suite called INQUISITOR on an old Pentium 4 (with HT). I runs Dhrystones, Whetstones test on core 0 then core 1 ! WTF? It's the same bloody CPU. The programmer must have got his diploma out of a cornflakes box. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
hyperthreading CPU benchmark joke
On 13/02/2011 7:51 AM, Orson Cart wrote:
I tried this benchmark suite called INQUISITOR on an old Pentium 4 (with HT). I runs Dhrystones, Whetstones test on core 0 then core 1 ! WTF? It's the same bloody CPU. The programmer must have got his diploma out of a cornflakes box. The method for detecting a true multi-core vs. a virtual multi-core is exactly the same, involving using the CPUID instruction in a specific way. So the difference to software of whether it's a true core or a Hyperthreading core is nil. Besides, the differences between virtual cores and true cores is starting to blur these days. For example, AMD has come up with the concept of the "Bulldozer" cores which are somewhat more than a virtual core, but somewhat less than a full core; they say two cores in a Bulldozer module should be about 80% as powerful as a full core, but sharing all caches with each other and using much less energy. So the benchmark may actually end up being the appropriate way to look at cores. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
hyperthreading CPU benchmark joke
On Feb 17, 8:11*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 13/02/2011 7:51 AM, Orson Cart wrote: * I tried this benchmark suite called INQUISITOR on an old Pentium 4 (with HT). I runs Dhrystones, Whetstones test on core 0 then core 1 ! WTF? It's the same bloody CPU. The programmer must have got his diploma out of a cornflakes box. The method for detecting a true multi-core vs. a virtual multi-core is exactly the same, involving using the CPUID instruction in a specific way. So the difference to software of whether it's a true core or a Hyperthreading core is nil. Not if you are scheduling. You want a scheduler to be aware of whether a given processor is a distinct physical core or not. Linux SMT Kernel scheduling has been "hyperthreading-aware" for a few years at least. How it is actually done is above my pay grade. Robert. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
hyperthreading CPU benchmark joke
On 17/02/2011 8:44 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
Not if you are scheduling. You want a scheduler to be aware of whether a given processor is a distinct physical core or not. Linux SMT Kernel scheduling has been "hyperthreading-aware" for a few years at least. How it is actually done is above my pay grade. Robert. There is a way to figure it out through the same CPUID instruction. I think it involves looking for bits in the return register's upper vs. lower nibble or something like that. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
hyperthreading CPU benchmark joke
Robert Myers wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:11 am, Yousuf wrote: On 13/02/2011 7:51 AM, Orson Cart wrote: I tried this benchmark suite called INQUISITOR on an old Pentium 4 (with HT). I runs Dhrystones, Whetstones test on core 0 then core 1 ! WTF? It's the same bloody CPU. The programmer must have got his diploma out of a cornflakes box. The method for detecting a true multi-core vs. a virtual multi-core is exactly the same, involving using the CPUID instruction in a specific way. So the difference to software of whether it's a true core or a Hyperthreading core is nil. Not if you are scheduling. You want a scheduler to be aware of whether a given processor is a distinct physical core or not. Linux SMT Kernel scheduling has been "hyperthreading-aware" for a few years at least. How it is actually done is above my pay grade. You are correct, the problem is you have to know if HT is faster or slower than using two cores. If you are running pthreads in the same process, working on data in memory, sharing an L1 cache may be faster than two full cores. For other loads the opposite is true. I'm not disagreeing, just saying knowing HT from cores isn't the sum of information needed for best scheduling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HyperThreading dual core cpu will their be one ??? | The Other Guy. | General | 0 | November 26th 04 09:40 PM |
P4B533-E and Hyperthreading CPU | NBK | Asus Motherboards | 2 | July 16th 04 05:00 PM |
VIA C3 cpu benchmark | terry | General | 15 | December 8th 03 04:35 AM |
CPU Temperature higher with Hyperthreading Disabled ! | Paul Rubin | Intel | 15 | November 16th 03 01:27 PM |
Hyperthreading CPU and Win2K... | Craig | Intel | 5 | August 21st 03 11:38 PM |