JF-AMD

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   I think this helps underscore my point. Sometimes you get performance, sometimes you don't. I used to work for a major OEM that sold Intel systems. One of the biggest problems was that SQL Server, for instance, ran slower with HT when you
2. 2.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   The goal was not to dismiss SMT - merely to explain why we are not using it. We have a different strategy than the competition. They are choosing SMT, we are heading down the path of more physical cores. At the end of the day 3 things matt
3. 3.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   Ah, welcome to the world of lawyers. Those disclaimers are everywhere, like the the labels on the lawnmowers that say "don't pick this up while it is running." They aren't distancing themselves from me, just standard legal stuff. Yes, it
4. 4.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   I will get that fixed. Thanks.
5. 5.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   No, it has more to do with the inconsistency of SMT in an x86 environment. If we were always getting consistent performance gains and expected stability it would be a consideration. That might change in the future, but the technology needs
6. 6.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   We have looked into that, but that is not our strategy. If we knew that SMT (in an x86 architecture) could lead to an "always better performance" environment, it might be more applealing. But the fact that the performance aspect becomes ap
7. 7.▲
   by JF-AMD 17y ago

   no, that was actually not a pun.