Most Intel processors feature what they call "hyperthreading," basically another virtual core for each physical core. Is there a significant difference between these virtual cores and physical cores? For example, if I bought an 8-core machine and a hyperthreaded quad-core both at the same clock with similar specifications, would the 8 physical core machine outperform the quad-core-with-hyperthreading machine?
| |||
feedback
|
This question covers exactly the same ground as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.
|
Yes, there is a difference. Obviously, physical cores would only outperform the virtual cores if programs actually use them. :) Virtual cores simply take advantage of CPU stalls to process another thread, while the CPU is waiting. When nothing is stalling, though, they don't run more instructions at a time than a single core. Physical cores, on the other hand, actually run multiple threads in parallel; they are very similar to multiple physical processors, except that caches and such components might be shared at some levels. | |||
|
feedback
|
|
Well, the difference is so significant, you could end up with no performance difference between a dual core with hyperthreading and a regular dual core. Consider hyperthreading as a 'recycling' feature, it could use clocks that otherwise unusable due to memory access. But on simplistic process, it could give you no improvement at all. | |||||||
feedback
|
