Originally, xeon was a suffix. A "Pentium 4 xeon", for example, was the mp equivalent of a p4. Times have changed.
And, for the record, the new xeons do have hyperthreading. If anyone would like to dispute this, then perhaps they'd like to visit this link: http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/xeon/index.htm?ii d=ipp_srvr_proc+xeon512kb& Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Napier, Kevin Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 1:34 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? For the record there were P3 and PII chips labled with the xeon monkier.. no they are not the same as the p4 version as you point out, but to say "XEON was initially based off the P4 architecture" is not accurate. It would be better to say the p4 xeons were based off the p4 architecture. omfg I can't believe this discussion is still going on. -----Original Message----- From: Shane Robinett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? Mike - if you are going to make up stuff, atleast try to have something to back it up sir! P4 has multiple branches in the CPU line. The most recent branches include P4 Extreme Edition - -more or less targetted at the high-end gaming PC / Platform. It does include Hyperthreading. It is built on the 130nm die size Most P4 branches do NOT include Hyperthreading. They have varying die sizes , level 2 and level 1 caches. XEON was built with dual processor servers in mind. XEON includes HT. It is built on a 90nm die -- and it IS NOT a P3. XEON was initially based off the P4 architecture, then split.. and then they brought the P4 Extreme back into line or very similiar to the XEON. P4 = Workstations, gaming platforms XEON = Servers Info about P4 = http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4HTXE/ Info about XEON = http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/xeon/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Holl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > To my knowledge all the new Dual Xeons have HyperThreading. > I have multiple Dual Xeon servers to prove it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Mike Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:41 AM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > Dave I know peeps here will hate me for continuing on with this but this is > > a forum for issues like this and I must make a point. > > A Dual Xeon (which is a Pentium 3) does not have HT. That's a Pentium 4 > > thingy. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > I'd like to add that I have said that hlds is not multi-threaded, which is, > > in fact, false. It is not coded in a way to take advantage of > > hyperthreading, however. > > > > So, perhaps I should have said that hlds is not "hyperthreaded"? > > > > I haven't made any benchmarks, but run a fairly large gameserver hosting > > company. > > > > All of my systems are dual processor. I have noticed on dual-xeon systems > > that hyperthreading will impair the performance of large servers. > > > >>From the task manager, a dual proc system with HT will show 4 cpus. > > Watching the cpu usage of each process, a large server will "bottom out" > > at 50% of a cpu (25% at the task manager, during 32 player avalanche, for > > example). When this happens, the server lags out. > > > > The fix is to disable hyperthreading, which will allow hlds to use one full > > processor if needed. > > > > I can imagine that perhaps a smaller server would run better on a single > > proc system with hyperthreading enabled, but don't have the means or desire > > to test. > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Hartland > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:41 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > You clearly dont understand how HT works. Here's a brief overview: > > HT makes a single CPU core look like two CPU's it does this so that the OS > > can schedule additional tasks on the second "virtual" CPU and hence make use > > of potentially idle execution units in the "physical" CPU. > > > > The problem comes from at least two potential issues. > > 1. The "physical" CPU may not have any idle execution units due to the > > design of the code being run and hence a conflict now exists. > > > > 2. The data and or code needed to satisfy the second "virtual" CPU's process > > requirements invalidates in some way the data / code for the primary CPU's > > process. This causes additional pipeline stalls reducing NOT increasing the > > efficiency of the CPU. > > > > So yes HT can help but it does not always help due to the potential > > conflicts for resources that exist which don't exist in a true SMP system. > > > > Tomshardware has some nice info on this: > > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040528/index.html > > > > Steve / K > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > >> I am going to try this one more time. > >> > >> Again, the Operating system HAS THREADS TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!! > >> > >> I AM PRETTY SURE THE OS HAS AT LEAST ONE THREAD !!!!!!!! > >> Lets pick the csrss.exe (Client server run time sub system) process > > (which > >> btw services win32 calls ... Something HLDS.exe needs). > >> > >> HL one main thread > >> PLUS ++++++++ > >> OS at least one thread (but probably several dozen more) THAT ADDS UP > >> TO at the very least ... TWO. > >> > >> A MP (Multi processor) system would therefore have better performance. > >> > >> Because two threads run simultaneously. > >> This is the point I was making and I did say I don't know about HT but > > with > >> MP HLDS.exe is better. > >> > >> If you got bad results with your benchmark testing HLDS.exe on MP, I > > would > >> look at it again. > > > > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
