Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera
Agree. But in other words, one cannot perform if the other is busy, right? ...  |
It's a bad analogy for AMD processors because they do both run at the same time. Think of it more as two people at the same desk with two computers sharing a switch. You have 100Mbit, and when one person is using it they have the full 100Mbit. So the other person starts using the second computer on the shared 100Mbit. It still works and the person can work, but unless the person decides to copy a movie or something big from the server, it won't slow down, and even if it does slow down it balances the load and prioritizes it as needed. AMD's processors are no different.
So yes, AMD runs in parallel, yes there could be performance losses in special cases, but no, it doesn't bottleneck on shared components like you're suggesting. Using that argument, you could say, "Intel CPUs are slow because hyper-threading is sharing the entire core," as opposed to AMD's sharing only part of the "module" (mainly decoders, branch prediction, and cache) because the entirety of the integer cores and FP cores themselves are not shared.