Does "Turbo Core" technology = hyper-threading?

To just say "yes" would be over simplifying it.

B-D was based on a more of a direct scheduling of packets into a processing unit(s) vs Intel that directed straight away into a processer then loops around small information packets between cores that have less work scheduled. Hyprethreading internally separates single threaded programs, while B-D is set to take true multi thread programs with pre-package workloads and distributes those well before the core. Intel has a great set up that fast no down playing it... though it does consume power for that.

It's that scheduling of multi thread packets up front that had issues with Win7, but is only the smallest of concern for why Zambezi fell so short. For single thread AMD was counting on the regular (Phenom) way of doing things to prevail, but other chip/gate issue killed that.

Though the hope is with piledriver but I'm not seeing that second spin going leap and bounds against Ivy Bridge.

Even that's overly simplified... anyone else put a spin on it?

Edit: Win7 fixed are said to provide "seem to offer little more then a 10% boost" but read up!
http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html

So to simplify it even more, it uses idle cores to boot the power of the utilized cores? If so, the power draw and utilization must be extremely complex

"Does "Turbo Core" technology = hyper-threading?" No, HT adds threads per core. TC is a bump in frequency on cores being used. That's how I see it.


I wonder it the next batch of BDs are due soon?