Quote Originally Posted by savantu View Post
SMT allows me to increase the utilization of an underutilized core. CMT duplicates the core or part of it, thus duplicating the lack of utilization also.
CMT duplicates part of the core, not the whole core. Why call CMT when it duplicates the whole core? Both SMT and CMT takes up die space. However, both are also means to exploit all available die-space for performance. Simply put, SMT and CMT increases performance per area. 50% (theoretical) die-space increase to yield twice the performance? Who wouldn't want that? Hell, I don't think AMD will be selling 8-cores to desktops later if it wasn't for this tech.

Well, do you understand why AMD wants CMT? If you're still stubborn, I guess you like Intel's methods way better.

Plus, your scenario seems to indicate that SMT gives twice the performance. We all know this isn't true. And we all know adding another core gives almost twice (or more than twice if it somehow removes a bottleneck somewhere) the performance for well-threaded softwares. The lack of utilizations are also automatically fixed by the shared units two cores in a module share. Who the hell cares about lack of utilization anyway, when adding another core is very cheap with CMT?

Oh and, Bulldozer does offer better single-threaded performance. JF has already confirmed that. By how much, we do not know.

@Xoulz: I don't get your analogy. Perhaps you should refer to Particle's sig

I want to put more technical details on this post to cover up the argumentation holes, but it would make this post messy.

AMD probably won't spend years on Bulldozer if CMT isn't any better than SMT in terms of increasing performance per area.