I would think that both Window-7 and Win XP support SMT - is that correct?
•If you have an OS that supports SMT but have apps that don't, will the OS still make use of the dual cores by executing some apps on one core and other apps on the other? For instance would it perhaps run monitoring software on one and other things like word processing etc. on the other? Or if the apps don't support SMT,- does that mean the dual cores are useless?
It is really up to the programs whether or not is utilizes multiple cores. Windows 7 will surely make use of multiple cores, I see my cpu monitor use all 8 logical threads (4 cores with Hyperthreading) on an i7 920
sporadically throughout use of it and other programs I have installed.The best thing to do is to go to the website and research the programs you are concerned whether or not make use of a multi-core processor.AVAST!
As quoted per Avast.com for AVAST! Free Edition
when I clicked on the technology tab.
Optimized for latest Intel Core i7 CPUs
Critical sections of the avast! scanning engine code have been optimized to deliver unrivaled performance on the latest Intel chips.
New Multi-threaded scanning optimization
avast! runs faster on new multi-core CPUs. A new avast! feature allows the splitting of large individual files between cores, accelerating the scanning process.
If you have an OS that supports SMT and an app that supports SMT - does that mean that the app will itself make use of both cores while it is executing - running some instructions on one core and other instructions on the other?
It's all shared, it's not like one program or one particular OS service is completely set aside for one core and then the other program uses the other core... it's just all mixed and matched and "jambled" all together. It "processes" the code all at once really, very rapidly. Some services do have higher priority than others, but I don't mess with changing that ever.
Take a look at these architectural diagram of how things work... Core 2 Duo
, i7 Socket 1366
It's hard to make sense of things like that, but that's the best I can do, I don't know much more than that. I'm not a microprocessor engineer.
I don't know how to compare the speed of the dual processors to my current processor and have some quesions?
The main things you should look at are FSB (Front Side Bus) or in the "i" series of processors the QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) and in AMD's proc's HyperTransports (HTs), how much cache (the more the better) L3 is better than just having L2, the clock rate i.e. 2.8ghz doesn't mean a whole lot these days, but the higher the better obviously.Also, many novices make the mistake that the processor is doing most of the work when opening a program or operating windows explorer (not internet explorer) but the main component that can make a huge difference in the speediness of your computer is the hard drive. So look for a motherboard with a nice Southbridge/SATA Controller (communicates between the hard drive and processor) and a hard drive that spins at higher RPM i.e. 7200 RPM and better yet 10,000 RPM with higher the cache the better i.e. 32mb. Also, there are new hard drives out now called SSD's (Solid State Disks) which have no mechanical moving parts and operate much like a flash or thumb drive does. They are extremely expensive, but are very fast.
It will probably drive you crazy trying to make a decision on what processor is better than the other, so something that can be useful is a CPU Hierarchy Chart
by a trusted reviewer of hardware like Tomshardware.com. The higher up the list, the better the processor. Also, research individual processors on that site once you have it narrowed down a bit into your price range, and they will list benchmark results for running all kinds of benchmarking programs, some multi-threaded, some not.
Simply put, the best processor for the money is the i7 920
, or on AMD's side the Phenom II x4 955/965
for hard drives are quite nice for the price compared to SSD's.
Hope that helps.
Edited by Ferrari, 01 March 2010 - 07:20 PM.