Reverse Hyperthreading

[SaltyPretzel]

Anyone ever thought of this idea? Instead of splitting a CPU core in half why not combine two cores for double the Ghz?  Right now cores wait for instruction per program but what if Intel/AMD/Qualcomm made firmware to RAID 0 two physical cores allowing games and other programs that historically used 1 physical core to utilize 2 physical cores = 1 logically.  Sure an 8 core processor would be cut in half instantly but does anyone really utilize more than 4 cores anyways? (besides work)  Of course there would need to be a high speed controller designating them for instructions.

[Skiiwee29]

<-- Moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory -->

[Jurrunio]

that's what AMD tried to do with Bulldozer, the rest is history.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

that's what AMD tried to do with Bulldozer, the rest is history.

Not really, but to prevent argument, kinda yes really. 

It was 8 X86 cores and 4 FPU each 2 cores shared. This is not SMT/HT. 

 

SMT/HT is a single X86 core that can run more than a single thread. You don't need an FPU to have a processor core. Which when processors came out, did not sport FPU. It was just a single core.

[Jurrunio]

4 hours ago, ShrimpBrime said:

It was 8 X86 cores and 4 FPU each 2 cores shared. This is not SMT/HT. 

But reverse SMT right? at least in single thread tasks it will behave like 1 core with the guts of nearly 2 cores. 

 

AAAND it still loses to the older Phenom ii here (at the same clocks). Yay.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

But reverse SMT right? at least in single thread tasks it will behave like 1 core with the guts of nearly 2 cores. 

 

AAAND it still loses to the older Phenom ii here (at the same clocks). Yay.

I guess that would be reverse SMT  

At the same clocks? Phenom II couldn't do FX clocks without at least Dice. 5ghz+....

 

I think the per core transistor count is what hurt FX so badly. A 1090T has almost as many transistors as an 8 core FX chip lol.

 

We'll never know why AMD tried "modules" that consisted of a 2 pack X86 32nm node sharing an FPU, but I thought it was an interesting design. 

They promised the worlds first 5ghz chip and actually kept that promise with the FX-9590. 

 

Just because FX was terribly slow, doesn't mean we all didn't get to see something neat released. It worked, I know that much. Also the FX processor unzipped files way faster than any Intel counterpart, but nobody ever mentions the good things about chip designs. FX chips broke the 8ghz world record of P4. Pipeline vs Pipeline. In the OC community; (not here) this was a big deal and a lot of people where reaching 7-8ghz pretty easily including myself. 

 

So instead of buying an i7 980, I had a ton of FX chips cause they where dirt cheap and easy to overclock. 

Nab some Dry Ice or LN2 and just go to town. On just about any motherboard too. 

Right now, FX would be the platform to get into for extreme overclocking beginners IMO. 

 

But, For gaming, FX was garbage period.