<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx</link><description>As we start talking of high performance computing, 64-bit platform offerings etc. some of the buzz words that come into play are dual processor , dual core and Hyper Threading . I thought it would be a good idea to find and write about what these technologies</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#555794</link><pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:46:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:555794</guid><dc:creator>Name is required</dc:creator><description>The AMD dual-core processors have separate L2 cache unlike the pic you included.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13043,00.html"&gt;http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13043,00.html&lt;/a&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#739758</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:12:54 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:739758</guid><dc:creator>pic</dc:creator><description>Intel's 800 and 900 series also have separate L2 Cache. But they were made into one in the Core and Core 2 processors.</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#1884378</link><pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:07:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1884378</guid><dc:creator>jp</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;hey, i think ht is way better than dualcore, because i have a ht and it works really fast on media editing , creating programs, and dual core gets stuck to many times. I think HT is the best so far. HT isn't that famous because none needs that much power for a pc. however , dualcore is known because it is cheap. HT is expensive for some reason, don't you think?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#2509059</link><pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 22:49:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:2509059</guid><dc:creator>duh</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;the pro-HT comment someone posted was the stupidest thing i've read today :D intel's HT implementation is terrible, which is why theyve even dropped it off current xeons&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#4105045</link><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:13:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4105045</guid><dc:creator>marvin</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;set..ready...goo:QUADCORE baby!!!!and soon OCTACORE....HYPER WHAT?????&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#5263414</link><pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:35:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:5263414</guid><dc:creator>Gopal ji Singh</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; this is really good. Keep it up.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#7417286</link><pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:04:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:7417286</guid><dc:creator>Howard</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Both my Sony VAIO and HP Pavilion have HT and they both work hugely fast. One at 2.8 and the other at 3.0.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have nothing else to compare it to other than frinds computers I've tried with a DC with around the same speed and RAM. Programs like SONAR and Soundforge zip along like nothing I've ever used before.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not much of a comparison but definitely no complaints : )&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#8876257</link><pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:11:18 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8876257</guid><dc:creator>zeyaad </dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;im using a intel 3.06ghz HT cpu n i find it performs more better a intel D 2.0ghz cpu not only the stability but aswell as the core temp b much lower, and for the price range its not bad:)&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Dual Core Vs Dual Processor Vs Hyper Threading</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/gauravseth/archive/2006/03/20/555519.aspx#9259402</link><pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:12 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9259402</guid><dc:creator>glenn</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;lol, I have 8 core playstation 3 and it whips my celeron 533 into submission. I have Hyper-Thermia. I dont think the Hyper Thermia helps much but it improves with a dual core electric bar fire.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>