Is Hyperthreading the way to go?

Gary wrote:

I am looking at upgrading my processor and motherboard from an Athlon 2.GHz processor and 1 133ghz board. I can’t decide whether to go for HT technology or AMD’s 64 bit. I only use the p.c. for photo editing and am running CS.

Your views would be welcomed.

Gary

I have a P4 (Prescott) 3.2 GHz processor that has HT.

My experience is that Photoshop does NOT use the "other processor". Well, it’s really more like left over processing overhead that get used. However, HT is still nice to have if I run anything else at the same time. OK, that’s mostly music, but Windows XP knows to run that in the other processor. Therefore, it doesn’t bother my Photoshop.

Noise Ninja is a program that I use with Photoshop – a lot. The latest version of that DOES know how to use the whole HT parts of the processor. When that upgrade came out, it was noticeably faster. That is very nice when running a big batch.

Actually I think the 3.2 GHz does a lot more for Photoshop than does the HT. Of course, if you are going to do buy Intel, you are probably going to get HT anyway. I guess I’m saying, don’t buy Intel for HT; it’s just nice to have anyway. An AMD 64 bit will probably give you more than my 3.2.

Clyde

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "Gary" wrote:

I am looking at upgrading my processor and motherboard from an Athlon 2.GHz processor and 1 133ghz board. I can’t decide whether to go for HT technology or AMD’s 64 bit. I only use the p.c. for photo editing and am running CS.

Your views would be welcomed.

I’ve seen at least one report showing PS running more slowly with HT engaged. In any case, whichever Intel processor you look at, for 2D at least, the AMD is quicker, and also for some 3D functions.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui