Whats the difference between hyperthreading and the new 64 bit proc. that are comming out?  I know windows Vista will support 64 bit proc but atm windowx XP can not (Unless you get the 64 bit edition).  I also heard it gives you a 30% increse in speed... why?  Also know of any websites that explain it?
204765
Hyper-threading\nHyper-threading, officially called Hyper-Threading Technology (HTT), is Intel's trademark for their implementation of the simultaneous multithreading technology on the Pentium 4 microarchitecture. It is basically a more advanced form of Super-threading that first debuted on the Intel Xeon processors and was later added to Pentium 4 processors. The technology improves processor performance under certain workloads by providing useful work for execution units that would otherwise be idle, for example during a cache miss.\n\nMore information - \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading\n\nDual-Core Or Multi-Core\nA multi-core microprocessor is one which combines two or more independent processors into a single package, often a single integrated circuit (IC). A dual-core device contains only two independent microprocessors. In general, multi-core microprocessors allow a computing device to exhibit some form of thread-level parallelism (TLP) without including multiple microprocessors in separate physical packages. This form of TLP is often known as chip-level multiprocessing, or CMP.\n\nThere is some discrepancy in the semantics by which the terms "multi-core" and "dual-core" are defined. Most commonly they are used to refer to some sort of central processing unit (CPU), but are sometimes also applied to DSPs and SoCs. Additionally, some use these terms only refer to multi-core microprocessors that are manufactured on the same integrated circuit die. These persons generally prefer to refer to separate microprocessor dies in the same package by another name, such as "multi-chip module", "double core", or even "twin core". This article uses both the terms "multi-core" and "dual-core" to reference microelectronic CPUs manufactured on the same integrated circuit, unless otherwise noted.\n\nMore information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-core\n\n64-bit\nIn computer architecture, 64-bit is an adjective used to describe integers, memory addresses or other data units that are at most 64 bits (8 octets) wide, or to describe CPU and ALU architectures based on registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.\n\nAs of 2004, 64-bit CPUs are common in servers, and have recently been introduced to the (previously 32-bit) mainstream personal computer arena in the form of the AMD64, EM64T, and PowerPC 970 (or "G5") processor architectures.\n\nAlthough a CPU may be 64-bit internally, its external data bus or address bus may have a different size, either larger or smaller, and the term is often used to describe the size of these buses as well. For instance, many current machines with 32-bit processors use 64-bit buses (e.g. the original Pentium and later CPUs), and may occasionally be referred to as "64-bit" for this reason. The term may also refer to the size of an instruction in the computer's instruction set or to any other item of data (e.g. 64-bit double-precision floating-point quantities are common). Without further qualification, however, a computer architecture described as "64-bit" generally has integer registers that are 64 bits wide and thus directly supports dealing both internally and externally with 64-bit "chunks" of integer data.\n\nMore information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
125302
How comes you're using XP Pro on a "P3 class" Celeron with only 64MB Ram. This is a mismatch that couldn't be greater. To run XP Pro you need at least 256MB and even this is low. I suppose you previously had W98 or W98SE, go back to that OS to increase the speed without upgrading the hardware.\n\nBut if you want to stay with the XP Pro, you have to upgrade the memory to the maximum (512MB ?), this is not that expensive. But be careful, not even Crucial has the Ram type of the HP Pavilion 7700 in it's database, so it seems your system may require proprietary or non-standard Ram.
27475
hi, i have been searching for the Windows Vista latest edition for over the past week, and few days back i found that the latest complete download you can find is that of \nWindows Vista 32 Bit Build 5270. also known as the December CTP version.\n\nYou are good enough to find the torrents. :). Keep us updated on howz vista. I am still at 24% in 2 days as my school network is firewalled!
636237
Have you tried bringing up the performance meter (press control-shift-escape at the same time) and click on the processes tab, sort by CPU usage, and see if it is in fact the WMP process taking up 100% of the CPU?  Have you looked at the percentage CPU when WMP is playing different types of files, like a WAV audio file versus a WMV versus an AVI?  That might help shed some light on what's going on.  Have you (on the perf meter screen) examined how much memory is in use and how many threads there are before and during WMP running?  Have you tried uninstalling and reinstalling WMP?  Rebooted the PC into safe mode followed by a normal reboot?  I assume you have proper virus and spyware protection installed and up to date and have run all of the appropriate scans?  Also, run msconfig, go to the startup tab, and uncheck all the "extras" and do a normal reboot and try WMP again.  Have you tried running your question past your English teacher?  Ok, just kiddin on that last one but that was quite a run-on sentence.  Hope this might help or give some ideas, hopefully you're not stuck reinstalling the entire PC.\n\n[6/9/2006 11AM]: Sorry, the text in the images you posted isn't readable, but it looks like the memory usage is about the same and stays constant but the CPU is getting slammed when you start WMP.  And I think you're saying it does this regardless of what kind of file you open, audio only or video, right?  Hmmm.  Start with a fresh reboot, then: In your Windows Task Manager, Performance tab, what do you show for handles, processes, threads before and after starting WMP?  In the cases where the PC doesn't hang, does the CPU stay that way or drop to normal after you stop WMP?  Almost seems like a bug.  Any way you can back out, uninstall it, and reinstall WMP 9 or WMP 10 and try this again?  Also, consider what recent patches, .NET upgrades, etc might have been installed (perhaps automatically) that you might backout and try this again.  Can you reproduce this problem on another PC?  That might lead to clues that this one might just need to be re-imaged.  Finally, have you gone through the Microsoft knowledge base?  You might also consider posting your issue on experts-exchange.
460463
1.6P4 has no hyper threading.....from what you ask seems like you built an Atari. You cant play these games on an ATARI
326040
windows 64 bits is faster and windows vista just add couple function and make the screen look cooler!!
53812
My opinion on each version:\n\nWin95\npros: the most fastest version when boot up, for sure.\ncons: the most "uncomplete" Windows overall. Even the newest DirectX title doesn't support it anymore.\n\nWin98\npros: the most popular version because of it's huge improved user interface and accessibility than Win95.\ncons: the most unstable version when it comes to handle the memory, even worse than Win95. In Win98, after you run so many program and closes it, Win98 can't release it properly, leaving the system slower and slower over time if you don't restart it.\n\nWinNT\npros: specially made for server job. has a better memory handling than Win98.\ncons: still it's just a replicant of Win98. even worse, many new games won't run on it.\n\nWinME\npros: well... I don't really sure because I haven't used this yet, but from the thing I heard, the pros it... nothing.\ncons: another unstable version of Windows. Why? Because it's the first version of Windows that doesn't run "in top of DOS", but has it's "own" OS.\n\nWin2k\npros: another NT version of Windows, which means it prior in terms of stable. the task manager is also improved and much more powerful than before. That's why this version of windows started to stable, because everytime there is a program crash or not responding, nearly 100% can be shutted down by the Task Manager.\ncons: it takes AGES to install, to boot up, and to sign in. Thank God it doesn't take ages to shutdown... on it's earlier version, it does suffer from the same error as WinNT: can't run many new games. You must install service pack 3 or 4 in order to get the full advantage.\n\nWinXP\npros: the most stable version of Windows, when compared to the previous. it also has a nice new brand looking theme. also, it doesn't take ages now to boot up (on fresh install, it's only takes 1 - 2 bar loading, like 2 - 3 seconds).\ncons: requires much larger memory than it's predecessor, like min 128 MB...\n\nWin2k3\npros: has the NT property - which means the stable and the security, and has the XP look. So this one is slightly better than XP. Now it's even harder to attack server which runs with Win2k3.\ncons: but it also takes more time to boot up, which means it can't run program as fast as XP. But the difference won't be noticed on a fast processor. also requires more memory min 256 MB.\n\nWinVI [Windows Vista]\npros: this version of windows hasn't come out yet. But it looks like that this WinVI is going to succeeded WinXP, not WinNT. So in short, WinVI is targetted as home entertainment use, not for server like Win2k3. the MS claims that WinVI will respond ever better, so that will overrun WinXP. Also, WinVI will have a brand new look, a purplish rather violet color.\ncons: the system requirement here is also a lot much more. now, it's not only processor requirement here, but it's also graphical requirement here, if you want to take the best of WinVI's user interface out to your desktop monitor. it does give the chills... isn't it...\n\nso technically, if you ask me the best Windows version ever in terms of user interface, it's the WinVI. In terms of security, it's the Win2k3 and WinVI is in even (the Microsoft Anti Spyware is built-in for WinVI). But in OVERALL, I think the winner still be hold by WinXP because I can't imagine how expensive your computer will be if you're using WinVI... and I'm just afraid that WinVI run very slow, or even can't run on slow machines, while the WinXP can.
603466
Windows XP 64 bit Edition is for use with 64-bit processors and applications.  At this point in time, there are not enough applications to warrant upgrading the system.  I recommend keeping everything as is.\n\nAll your old programs and drivers will work, because XP x64 is naturally backwards compatible with XP x32.\n\nIf you have any further questions, please email techsupport@thepcmonitor.com
111991
This text refers to hyperthreading and talks a little about p4 hyperthreading\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading\n\nif that doesnt help try using google\nhttp://www.google.com\n\nHope this helps!
514456
Hyper threading is when the processor is able to see 2 "virtual" process threads and process them sort of at the same time, but not with the power or speed of a Dual Core processor, this is found in Intel processors, I believe that HyperTransport (although im not really sure) is just AMD's version of Hyper Threading and they use it only in AMD processors.
485972
at least for now, chuck out any thoughts of amd\nturin 64 x 2 is just a shadow of the intel core 2 duo\n\nmind u specifically the t7x00 series & not the t5x00 \nthis i mention cause the t7x00 has an awesome 4 mb l2 cache\n\nwhereas the latest turins have 1 mb which is further divided between the 2 cores ie. 512 kb + 512 kb\n\n> the bottom line t7200 is good enuf 4 me\n2.0 ghz, 667 mhz fsb, 4 mb l2 cache\n\nthe t7400 & t7600 have faster clock speeds, but price differential on date seems unjustified to me, my personal opinion !\n\n1 gb should be enuf for u'r application with the t7200 processor\n> make sure u'r os is win xp media centre 2005, not xp-home or xp-pro !\n\ncheckout if a 12.1" screen suits u, the dell xps m1210 is a great system !\nhttp://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m1210?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs\nelse lemme know & i can suitably tell ya
12881
Well thats a broad subject my friend. X86 refers prmarily to the instruction sets built into a cpu. 486 PCs had fewer instructions than the 686 (X86). Then MMX came along which added like 30 more instructions but they were still considered 686 processors.
529757
The AMD64 architecture gives you the best of both the 64-bit and 32-bit worlds. That's because, depending on the operating system that you load, an AMD64 processor can run both the "classic" 32-bit versions of Windows, such as Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003, or it can run the special 64-bit extended versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 that Microsoft is currently beta-testing. \n\nThe real flexibility comes when the processor loads the 64-bit version of Windows; in that mode, called Long Mode, the computer can run both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows applications at full hardware speed. The backward compatibility with 32-bit applications is provided by the AMD64 processor on the hardware side; the operating system handles 32-bit calls by using a special technology called WoW64, for Windows-on-Windows 64, that translates 32-bit pointers and arguments into 64 bits and back again. \n\n(A 32-bit application can find out whether it's running under WoW64 by calling the IsWow64Process function.
548658
it says right there\n\nat that website link :)\n\nsupports up to 3.8GHz\n\nthat is all the highest cpu can up atm any more can burn up the chip wires\n:)\n\nthe best way to know is look for the cpu compatiby specs, it's usally around it and tells you what your current mobo will support. because they already tested it\n\nif you are replacing it, i suggest u move up to 64bit i would recommend it and buy a new mobo.\nor dual cores it's better\n\n than buying a LGA775 cpu. you save more money and i think it's a wise choose. because the rate of  a 3.4 is almost the same as a 64bit or  core duo.\n\nonce vista comes out fully supports it, OMG it willl be teh best of teh best.
384112
1.6 ghz AMD turion 64 X2 has two 1.6 processors inside. Dual core processors handle multi-tasking better if you're running mulitiple programs on a Pentium 4 it's going to slow down. If you run it on the dual core processor it will run smoothly. \n\nRunning one program at time 2.4 P4 processor would beat 1.6 dual core. 1.6 is kinda slow I have 1.83 core duo processor. I paid $1200 for my 15.4" labtop. Now there are core 2 duos which are faster than the core duo so I recommend getting a labtop with a core 2 duo or at least what I have because it's pretty quick.
339217
Core 2 Duo is far superior.  The Pentium 4, though it does have the capability of hyperthreading, it is still just a single core 32 bit processor.  The Core two duo has two 64 bit processing engines, so it can process more instructions at one time.
179801
Some of the info above is false. Both intel and AMD make 64-bit chips. 64-bit is not any faster than 32-bit for everyday applications. In fact, for most applications, it's slightly slower. That's because most applications have not been developed for 64-bit computations. The memory latency also attributes to 64-bit being slightly slower. However, it's mostly unnoticeable.\n\nYou should run CPU-Z if you wish to know more about your system. It's a tiny, free, standalone application that does not require installation to run. And it will tell you a lot more than just your processor type.\n\nLink: h ttp://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php\n(note the space)\n\nAlso, you will need a 64-bit operating system (e.g. WinXP Pro x64) to enable the "benefits" of 64-bit computation.