BF2S Forums Hyperthreading

nope, hyperthreading is just like a cheaper version of dual core

Very informative Scorp! Thanks for the info

Intel? What is that? And what is that HT you are talking about.

You mean there is actually another chip manufacturer besides AMD? You must mean VIA!

No seriously. Im one off those AMD64 lovers. And don't know much about P4HT's, what I do know is that AMD hasn't got that stuff in the 64'ers and doesn't need it when it comes to games.

Hyperthreadin is supposed 2 be good for office apps from what i hear, 2 logical cpus ,  but its not being replaced with dual core


"Setup a very common tech support phone cal (trimmed for brevity)l:
*ring*
TS: hello, tech support, my name is ____ how can I help you today?
Cust: I can't burn a CD on your ***** machine.
* customer and TS exchange serial number and hardware specs *
TS: what kind of media and what speed?
Cust: CD-R 48x
TS: okay, that should be compatible. What were you burning and what else were you doing?
Cust: an Audio CD and why do you care?
TS: sorry sir, just trying to make sure you were not doing something that would overburden the machine while making the CD.
Cust: uhhhhh... I was playing Doom while the CD was burning.

Bingo.... Multitasking.... the evil monster of tech support nightmares. The hardware works, the software works, everything is compatible, and someone decides to play Doom or HL while burning a CD. And everything looks like it is working, but buffers underflow in the CD writer, CD pointers to data are lost in the burn process, the CD laser is targetting passing air-craft in boredom waiting for data, dogs and cats are sleeping together... you get the picture.

So hyperthread was meant to fix tech support nightmares? Nope, not at all. Okay, now you are confused. That is just why most computer manufacturers enable the hyperthread immeadiately upon building it. Hyperthread was a theory test, can a dual processor share the same process queue and work efficiently, work efficiently being the proper cornerstone. It is the entire design behind dual core coming later this year. AMD didn't bother with hyperthread, Intel proved it works so AMD didn't need to. This is also why you won't find Hyperthread Macs. It also solves an Intel only problem. Intel in its "infinite wisdom" builders larger and larger process queues, but this looses effiency when the processor multi-tasks. You will find Intel designs talking about Hyperthread achieving 10-15% higher performance. Well, then a hyperthread G4 or G5 or Athlon would get 10-15% performance increase too? nope. With the smaller process queues of the Athlon it is able to switch processes faster than the Intel, it is that difference between the Athlon and the Intel chips that hyperthread makes up for.... but only if you are running two high performance tasks! ooooo cue the dramatic music.

A power-pc design being RISC would gain almost nothing in hyperthread, but the microcode to handle logical processor splits would most assuredly slow it down. So no hyperthread Macs. AMD FX and Opteron lines finally get up to the processor queues that might gain something from hyperthread, but they are trying desperately to beat Intel to the dual core and skip hyperthread all-together. Thus no hyperthread on AMD.

So back to the question, should you enable disable hyperthread?
A) What are you trying to do? If you are running two high demand multi-tasking operations, or one critical timing operation (like burning a CD) and still doing other things... you want hyperthread on. But each task runs slower only allowed half the CPU total processing capability. If you want one really fast task able to stomp the other tasks into the ground and leave them a pile of mush in your wake, you want hyperthread off.

In the future you won't have a choice. Dual core means two 3ghz processors instead of one 3.2ghz processor. A good programmer can program his code to use both cores, but most software will only use one core. Hyperthread did serve its purpose in showing the path to dual core, and gave programmers a chance to code for dual processors on the cheap.

Now shut off the hyperthread like me, and stop playing doom while burning a CD and mush all the remaining processes into goo. enjoy!
"

Last edited by Maj.Do (2006-01-18 23:02:02)

hmm u should be able to turn it on in the device manager, let me check, is ur system prebuilt?


Edit: first make sure it supports HT


Enable Hyper-Threading Technology in BIOS Settings
Ensure you check the BIOS default setting prior to installation of the operating system. For your specific motherboard, ensure the switch to enable or disable Hyper-Threading Technology in BIOS settings is configured properly for Hyper-Threading Technology support. If the BIOS does not support Hyper-Threading Technology and a Pentium 4 Processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology is installed in the motherboard, the switch to enable or disable Hyper-Threading Technology may not be present. Ensure that the latest BIOS is installed and supports Hyper-Threading Technology. Then, enter BIOS settings and configure the switch to turn-on the Hyper-Threading Technology feature.

For Intel® Desktop Boards which support Hyper-Threading Technology, Hyper-Threading Technology will be enabled in the BIOS settings by default. To check that Hyper-Threading Technology is enabled for Intel Desktop Boards, enter BIOS settings and select "Enabled" under the Hyper-Threading Technology selection (See Figure 4). If the BIOS supports Hyper-Threading Technology and a Pentium 4 Processor 2.80 GHz (or below) without Hyper-Threading Technology is installed in an Intel Desktop Board, the Hyper-Threading Technology switch will be "grayed-out" and is disabled by default.


Making sure it works

2 cpus named in device manager


Task manager should look like that if HT is enabled

Last edited by Maj.Do (2006-01-18 23:05:41)

S4INT05 wrote:

if you've got HT, i think you need XP pro. i'm not so sure if XP home supports HT. i may be wrong.

to turn it on (if it isn't automatically turned on) go into your bios, (Delete upon startup). should be under Advanced options, and somehwere in the it will say HT Tech or HyperThreading or something to that effect. i've seen it in my bios, but i can't remember what it says exactly, just depends on your Bios version. from there, you can just turn it on or off. if you have a HT processor, chances are it's already on. you can just hit Ctrl Alt Del and if you see two boxes in your CPU usage history under the performance tab, it's doing its thing.

EDIT: damn, maj beat me to it.

Home supports ht, my bios had several options for turning on HT, just push f2 when ur come starts and check out your bios for HT:enable

If you have a CPU with HT, its usually on by default I believe

i scored a whole 10 points more on 3dmark 05 with Hyperthreading turned off! so i came to the conclusion it doesnt really help nor lower preformance with it on or off!

I though HT had to be ustiled at app level through well written programs that use threads correcly.  I assume that dual core woud be managed at a lower level...?

Last edited by TryfanMan (2006-01-19 05:42:08)

Stoned_Smurfz wrote:

i scored a whole 10 points more on 3dmark 05 with Hyperthreading turned off! so i came to the conclusion it doesnt really help nor lower preformance with it on or off!

Last I checked, that version of 3dmarks is single-threaded... thus no benefits when HT is turned on.

I think Maj.Do digressed a bit when he mentioned PowerPC stuff... since the initial post was to inquire whether there's a benefit.

HyperThreading is something you want to have on, even if it means a slight, albeit miniscule, drop in performance on your game or benchmarks.  I say this because Dual-Core is going to play a key role over the coming years.  And as AMD and Intel begin to pack more cores onto a CPU package, applications and games will become more thread-aware and be able to utilize it more.

Turn HT on and be done with it.  If a game begins to exhibit problems with HT on, then either ditch the game, find a patch, or use a thread-managing utility to work around this.  So far, I have had no problems running BF2 with my setup, which is a dual-core Athlon64.  But if you need the utility, google for 'WinLauncherXP' which is a utility I use when testing dual-core stability on some of the games I've played in the past.  Guild Wars, FlatOut, Tribes: Vengeance, UT200x, and many more should be able to run fine without any hassle.

TryfanMan wrote:

I though HT had to be ustiled at app level through well written programs that use threads correcly.  I assume that dual core woud be managed at a lower level...?

It's from the application level, or at the development stages to be precise.  The applications, be it games or office or multimedia, has to be made thread-aware in order to be usable and beneficial in HT, multi-core, and multi-processor setups.  Dual-cores won't manage anything so having a bad program will cause the system to behave bad or cause it to lock up and possibly/at worst a BSOD.  The benefits multi-core has over HT means that you'll be able to execute a thread fully.  It's probably a poor-man's multi-processor setup.  But at the very least, multi-core means the thread will have its own core, L1 cache, and L2 cache for itself.

Thanks for the responses guys, my thinking behind trying this was along the lines suggested by Maj.Do, that while im gaming I want one task at optimum performance. Im aware that this is differant for specific games, for instance Football Manager specifically recommends enabling HT, but as a BF2 whore this game is my only concern atm. There is no differance in 3dMark 05 score, i get 5720 either way, but ingame ive noticed one benefit, though this is subjective and may just be a kind of placebo effect. Ive found since installing SF, that my comp has been a little hotter on those maps, i can hear the cpu fan kicking in as i go over 50c, nothing to worry about. Since disabling HT this isnt happening, but performance is at least the same. (I meant to check my Fraps rates but got caught up in game and forgot to check). Ill keep it going for a few days and run some objective tests and post results. Again thanks for the intelligent and informative responses.