AMD to use HyperThreading?
 

This could give AMD a serious workstation performance boost.

Hyper threaded dual 248 Opterons :p. I so want my dual Opterons.

Way to go AMD! ...Although I won't be able to make much use of it, AMD=Stricly gaming for me.

technically old news, but new to me.

I think AMD should go for it. Anything to open up a wider audiance for their processors instead of the majority chip buyers being just gamers.

The next wave seems to be CPU's that will be dual core and 64-bit, so if your looking to purchase a new computer I would wait it out another year or so, for significant changes in computer architecture.

Intels Near Future (Bye Bye P4 hello dual 64-bit P-M)

Follow the leader to 64-bit :p
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/...lnocona_1.html
2 P-M's on one die
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33689.html

AMDs Near Future (Cont moving in the right direction):up:

Already has 64-bit, but dual cores soon
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...614175718.html

------Hungry Hungry OS----------------------
Speculated Requirements of the Next Windows OS:

"Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today." :confused:

http://www.osopinion.com/modules.php...ticle&sid=1296

Longhorn isn't supposed to come out in a few more years. As for the RAM, it shouldn't be too hard with DDR2.

Sun have had dual-core processors for a few years now, in production for about 1 year though, they also have an 8 core chip in development. AMD aso have a dual core processor in development so I doubt they'll switch the single core Athlons to HT. However, if they incorporated it into both of the dual cores, that could be interesting.

thats kinda what i was saying. dual core and dual proc. so four cores in total. but wouldnt a tri core setup of some kind be more effective? one processor to delegate tasks to the other two processors below it? im not an engineer of any type so i wouldnt know if it would be a good idea or not.

Damnit. Just when I make myself a new computer, PCI express, DDR2, multi-core processors, 64bit processors becoming affordable. . .ugh. Whatever happened to BTX? Did it kind of fade away?

BTX is an Intel thing and is still on its way. It's really unnecessary if you own the new Lian-Li PC V1000 case, or if you have an Apple.

As for dual cores, I'm pretty sure Intel will try to pack as many features as it can into the dual core P-M. It should include Hyper-Threading on each core, because Intel has already demonstrated that a dual system with H-T is a virtual 4 CPU system. A dual core dual CPU system would yield a virtual 8 CPU system, or at least the theoretical performance of an 8 CPU system without an 8 CPU system price.

BTW, IBM has 8 cores on 1 die with really fast level 3 cache. It's a monster.

I really really like the mainstream dual core idea. Bandwidth used to be the biggest problem in IT, now it's only secondary to latency. Dual cores have ultra low latency, so a system with 1 cpu and 2 cores can perform at near 100% faster than a system with 1 CPU. that means each CPU can work at full speed. Today's dual systems only work 60-80% faster than a 1 CPU system.

To make a dual core cpu a real idea, Intel and AMD had to consider than they will use twice as much space on a wafer than a single core die. That means they will have X yield number times 2, or twice the amount of bad yeilds. Both Intel and AMD will end up with a lower profit margin (for dual core CPUs) because of this. Better for the customer as always, which is another reason why I like dual cores.

so much that you know that i didnt but now do.