is intel hyper threading better than amd?

[Jacob Bowerman]

ok so a few questions about the CPU's
for example lets take a dual core 2.3ghz intel (hyper threaded) would this output the same performance as a quad core amd 2.3ghz? or anything? and if hyper threading is so great then why hasn't amd invented there own version of it?

do they run cooler on idle? do they run cooler at 100%
are they better for gaming?

 

[gustafangus]

ok so a few questions about the CPU's
for example lets take a dual core 2.3ghz intel (hyper threaded) would this output the same performance as a quad core amd 2.3ghz? or anything? and if hyper threading is so great then why hasn't amd invented there own version of it?

do they run cooler on idle? do they run cooler at 100%
are they better for gaming?

It depends on the actual cpu, but usually threads aren't equivelant to cores, therefore in theory it should be slower. But AMD's multi-core CPUs have very low single core performance versus Intel's high single core performances with i3s and i5s. Core duos are also good in single-threaded apps. It depends on the application. So, in rendering, per say, you should get better performance with AMD, but in games and some applications, that use 1-2 cores, you'll perform better with Intel.

 

[VincentP]

Hyper threading is an improved way of scheduling resources. A CPU with ht will be about 30% faster than the same CPU with ht disabled.
A quad core CPU from AMD should be faster than a dual core Intel with hyper threading, but what lets them down is that each core is much less efficient.
A single intel core can do much more than a single AMD core, even when the AMD core is running at a higher clock rate.
This means in applications where all four cores are well utilized, the AMD can come out ahead but where one or two cores only are being used the Intel is much better.
Comparing a quad core Intel to a quad core AMD, the Intel will be much better.

Hyper threading has no effect on temperature.
The main factor is power used by the CPU.
Most ivy bridge or haswell core i3/i5/i7 processors are rated at 77W or 84W.
Most FX series AMD processors are rated at 125W.
This is what makes the Intel CPUs produce less heat.

 

[vmN]

AMD have their own kind of "hyper-threading".

AMD have 4 modules, each module contain 2 cores.
Intel have 4 cores each containing 2 threads.

AMD's 2 cores share the resources the modules provides.
Intel 2 threads share the resources the core provide.

You can kind of see an pattern, AMD have a physical version of "hyper-threading", could be called hyper-coring.

 

[Master-flaw]

AMD+80%~(per X thread in Module)
Intel+20%~(per Hyper-thread)
Intel does get a boost from it's single core performance though.

 

[jacobian]

When an Intel chip has "hyprethreading", this means that for every real execution unit, there are two "logical cores". The logical cores are created by adding the facilities that store the state of the second thread, but not the actual second execution facilities. When instructions of one thread stall for some reason, the instruction from the second sequence take over the execution. Intel claims that hyperthreading improves the performance of multi-threaded application by some 10-30%. So it's not much, but still something.

Now one think you should keep in mind is that in AMD CPU/APU's each module holds two integer execution units, one FPU, and two logical cores. Somehow, to me this sounds awfully like "hyper-threading" for floating point stuff. And you need floating point math for most multimedia apps. AMD's cores are also designed to share some other facilities within each module. Why did AMD take this route? To me this sounds like an attempt to optimize for servers and business (non-multimedia) desktops. And then there is the issue that Intel architecture is designed to perform more instructions per clock cycle. At the same clock speed, an Intel core will slaughterer AMD core while consuming less energy.

Of course, the actual performance will depend on the application you have in mind as there are wide discrepancies in the relative performance in the benchmarks.

 

[jacobian]

AMD have their own kind of "hyper-threading".

AMD have 4 modules, each module contain 2 cores.
Intel have 4 cores each containing 2 threads.

AMD's 2 cores share the resources the modules provides.
Intel 2 threads share the resources the core provide.

You can kind of see an pattern, AMD have a physical version of "hyper-threading", could be called hyper-coring.

Yes, it's a bit of overselling the "cores" on AMD's part, probably aimed at people who think that more cores is always good. And by the way, each module has only two integer cores, but only one execution for floating point. So on a server, which normally benefit handsomely from more integer cores, the AMD cores are indeed appropriate, but for games and multimedia, you have half as many floating point execution units it seems.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

Unless you have a specific Intel and AMD CPU in mind, you can't make any kind of comparison. However, I'll echo what other people have said, in that Intel CPUs offer better per-core performance and lower power consumption, meaning they run cooler.

Hyper-threading is specific to Intel, and AMD have an equivalent in the form of SMT. Personally, I find both technologies rather gimmicky and no substitute for a true quad, hexa or octa-core CPU. Yes, they offer an improvement, but it's not much in everyday use. When you get onto gaming, it doesn't factor in at all, so you won't benefit from it. Most games don't even fully utilise quad-core CPUs, or they offer a menial improvement. That said, this will change in the coming years.

PC gaming is more about per-core performance and clock speed rather than the number of cores. A 2.3ghz CPU, even if it's quad-core will, most likely, be unable to play the latest titles. To give you an idea, I run a Pentium G2030 clocked at 3ghz with an MSI HD 7850 and 8GB RAM. With that, I can run Bioshock Infinite at its highest settings and average 50fps, with my CPU and GPU temperatures at 50° and 60° respectively.

 

[Jacob Bowerman]

thank you very much everyone, all the feedback was much appreciated