AMD to Disclose Details About Bulldozer Micro-Architecture in August

[ajaidev]

What a load of CRAP. There is so much wrong with these statements I just don't know where I should begin.

First, The thread scheduler of the OS takes care of this, you NEVER have to code your application to say what "core" you want it to run on.

Good thread schedulers fill up "real" cores before they "double up" to an HT core. That's just the way of things, and has been for a very long time. Since Win Server 2003 and Linux 2.6.x at the very least.

Second, A "virtual" core never "waits" on the real core, or vice versa, to complete it's computations. TWO THREADS can be pushed down the same "real + virtual" core at the same time.

XBitLabs has the best Diagram I have seen for this:



Is the solution proposed in BD better? Likely. But does Intel's solution improve overall IPC and resource utilization? Absolutely.
.................................................. ........

Ahhhh you should also do a little checking....

Thread scheduler issue's priority levels yes but those 32's can overflow quite easily and then what? The second core is used thats is one of the reasons HT has a negative impact on some programs.

The virtual core has no resources of its own, so it shares the real cores resources. Now when a specific amount of resources are in use the virtual thread can not be initialized until a resources are free.