D
davislane1
Everything about my next PC platform is screaming AMD. Killing off hyperthreading would scream even louder.
Intel leaks show that next i7 may drop hyperthreading
- Thread starter Greg S
- Start date
If this is true, it us a very bold move and I kinda like it considering the line up doesn't make any sense now when adding i9 to the mainstream, but now there is a reason, but the issues here now is price point of the line up, where AMD is very competitive with it's like up in terms of cores, but I'd hooe Intel will start the I3 at 100-150 depending on overlooking and clock speed, i5 at 170-230, i7 250-320, and i9 maybe from 380-450+, something like that would be good considering we know the performance increase will be very marginal, anywhere from 3-15%, but I'd take more cores, for a little better performance at around the same or cheaper price honestly.
urbanman2004
Posts: 173 +56
If Intel pulls this stunt then I am definitely gonna switch over to AMD on my next build
D
DelJo63
Again, threads exist in the Application space and HT in the kernel space.
Your turn to help me -- show me a control that associates a hyperthread to a specific core please. If the control shows a PID, that's the Process-ID from 1990's programming and is not even thread related
clearly, as I am a programmer :grin:
A long time ago in a galaxy far away, hyperthreading was shown to add up to a 95-percent performance improvement depending on workload. So if it does not hurt performance and it does not compromise security, why not have it?
Given sIntel's lack of notable performance improvements over the last several generations, I almost get the impression that they have cut their CPU research budget, or that they have a CEO who thinks the bottom line is the only thing that matters - rather than producing a good product.
I don't know who that CEO is, but if they are not a technical person, then sIntel's ship is not in good hands, IMO. It reminds me of what Rory Reed tried to do at AMD. Rory Reed was not at all technical, and thank the great CPU creator in the sky that AMD's board stopped drinking the kool-aid and hired the highly technical Lisa Su to pilot their ship.
Though, IMO, as I also stated above that this is probably because of how much it would cost them to fix TLBleed, my tinfoil hat says that this also may be an attempt to take the steam away from AMD as AMD only introduced hyperthreading with Zen. So they may also be trying to give hyperthreading a bad rap in order to chip away, pun intended, at the lead AMD is developing.
Either way to me, sIntel's recent actions have a smell of desperation.
Dimitrios
Posts: 1,388 +1,191
INTEL seems to be aiming towards gamers with high clock counts and less on cores and Hyper threading with this line of products. Oddly they are betting on gaming market to continue relying on high clock counts and less on cores and Hyperthreading. This is not good for gamers and people with Ryzen and Threadrippers or anyone with low clock speeds like first GEN Ryzen cpu's. I hope they don't persuade game developers to stay stagnant on the issues I stated above.
Dimitrios
Posts: 1,388 +1,191
True, but with 2nd gen Ryzen's are showing about an extra 400-500 MHZ so 4.4ghz-4.6ghz and with RAM inching higher and stable higher clocks and RAM prices going down there SHOULD be a flood of new and pre Ryzen buyers.
Here is my question to you and anyone that wants to chime in. With Ryzen's 2nd gen what RAM speeds are we looking at potentially now and when it matures?????? Ryzen does perform crazy good with RAM over 3,000MHZ-3200MHZ range. I feel confident Ryzen will hold up INTEL neck to neck with the increase of clock speeds and RAM getting faster, stable with a matured BIOS from board makers and prices going down as well.
REMEMBER INTEL ONLY BEATS AMD IN BENCHMARKS WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGH END INTEL CHIP AND A HIGH END NVIDIA CARD LIKE A 1080 WHICH NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD OR WANT TO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY FOR A FEW FPS
Last edited:
Bp968
Posts: 277 +195
Task manager just makes you *think* you have fine grained control over threads and cores and what runs on what. You really don't. The other guy is right, if you disable HTing it will sometimes improve performance in some limited cases but usually just hurts performance (by how much is debatable). Trying to pin specific tasks to specific "cores" sometimes helps but more often just hurts performance. Its quite possible with HT enabled to try and pin 2 tasks to two specific cores and instead pin them to the same core and same HT for that core. Its also not really possible to control what windows is doing with many of its own threads or background process threads and pinning too many things takes control away from windows and it can and will end up stuffing many of its threads into the same cores your trying to pin processes to, making it all run worse.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,628 +3,400
I never said gaming drove PC sales! You came up with that on your own!
It "appears" you need to read more, because a flagship part is never the sweet spot!
i5 6C/6T performs just like i7 6C/12T in games, so no, 6C/12T is not the sweet spot. Again, the place where performance tops out - is NOT the sweet spot.
6C is the core count that shows performance gains before losses.
In fact, an adequate quad core like a 5th or 6th gen Intel CPU are sweet spot core count chips.
Last edited:
waterytowers
Posts: 125 +23
> Threads within an application are a way of allowing "parallel" execution of code for an application or process. It is an application concept that allows a developer to divide a process into multiple running tasks, where tasks can run in "parallel", or at least appear to run in parallel by task switching on the available cores.
> A process can be tied to a set number of cores using Affinity. This is a feature of an operating system and is not directly related to the HyperThreading feature of a CPU. Affinity is used to help ensure a process does not hog all the CPU Cores of a system, at least that is how I have used it in the past.
> HyperThreading is a feature of a CPU that allows an operating system to make a CPU Core appear as though it is multiple Cores, so far this multiple has always been 2. So an 8 Core CPU will appear as 16 Cores, or some people call them 16 Hyper Threads. The operating system will just see them as Cores which is what you see in your operating system view of the processor(s). "top" in linux operating systems allows you to show either physical cores or hyper threading cores if it is enabled in the BIOS. This feature is enabled using the BIOS and makes it available to the Kernel of an operating system. It is up to the operating system to support the feature once enabled. Most modern operating systems do support Hyper Threading as it provides a boost in performance.
Try to explain then why on earth is the Handbrake tests will give you the same results with a 8700K and a 2700x (non OC both)? 6C/12T vs 8C/16T both with the same Corsair H100i v2
and yeah HT still pointless. Try to search for Handbrake benchmark with/without hyperthread...and check out the results
Probably you never worked in Audio-Video Production where Professionals using Xeons (sometimes even Dual) and Quadros/Radeons not like everyday YT-streamer with Intel Core/Ryzen with GTX/Radeon and results can be measured in minutes/hours not just 10 seconds.
Also it helps to run more applications at the same time.
Just a small number of examples.
I see, you wants change, but don't wants to change
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool...shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is willing...teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep...awaken him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise...follow him."
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 417 +658
It's not 8 cores at 5GHz. The I-9 has 2 cores that may get boosted to 5Hz if it has adequate cooling. Overclocking all 8 cores to 5GHz with HT on probably requires a 200+watt TDP cooler and maybe some decent binning on the part of Intel.
And Coffee Lake doesn't really smash Ryzen 2 in games. The IPC difference is only 5%, and when you combine Coffee Lake's IPC and frequency advantage, the average difference in games at 1080p is only 10% (according to Techspot benchmarks). The difference is basically negligible because you're getting well over 100 fps in most situations so you won't notice the difference.
Sure, but there will be an advantage, and Intel has it and will continue to have it until we see what 3rd gen ryzen can do
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 417 +658
That depends on Intel's pricing to see if it's worth it. It won't do them much good when compared to its closest Ryzen counterpart if it's only 10% better in games, equal to or marginally better in overall multithreaded applications, but 30+% more expensive.
For general consumer use, a minority might shell much more money for a marginal advantage for bragging rights, but I doubt most people would do that.
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
"it is a slight to customers that have utilized the feature over the past several generations of processors"
How is a name change a "slight"? The past i7 customers got HT. Any future Intel customers who want HT will just buy the i9. Did I miss something? Was there someone who expected to get HT in the past, who didn't get it? Or is there someone in the future who'll expect HT on future i7, and will be really disappointed when they don't get it? If so, that person should not build a PC, because of wallet-killing ignorance of the subject.
How is a name change a "slight"? The past i7 customers got HT. Any future Intel customers who want HT will just buy the i9. Did I miss something? Was there someone who expected to get HT in the past, who didn't get it? Or is there someone in the future who'll expect HT on future i7, and will be really disappointed when they don't get it? If so, that person should not build a PC, because of wallet-killing ignorance of the subject.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 417 +658
Desktop i7s have hyper threading while desktop i5s generally do not. This has been the key distinction between i5 and i7 since the Sandy Bridge series that came out 7 years ago. i7s pretty much have always had hyperthreading.
To remove a key feature of what it is known for is a rather significant change.
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
I guess I'm too mature to understand. But I do understand perfectly the reason you made this post. So am I to understand that you want everything always to remain exactly the same, just so you don't get confused? That's precious. No features have been removed, only the name has changed. A name doesn't make it perform worse, or cost more, it's just an identifying noise you make with your mouth. Now, if they called it i7 HT, and called the non-HT line i7, would that make you feel better? That actually would be a little confusing. How do you feel about the i3 then? It was always a dual core, then it got HT, and now it's a quad core, without HT - how confusing! But wait, sometimes it has 2 cores, HT, AND it's unlocked! Too much confusion, right? Let's not even think about the Pentium 3258! Might just have to buy a Ryzen, if it's too challenging to figure all this Intel stuff out.
Have a look at this review:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/
Handbrake 4K h.264 to 1080p h.265
Core i7-8700K @5.2GHz 16.4fps
Core i5-8600K @5.2GHz 13.7fps
Same # physical cores. Same CPU arch. Same clock speed. 6 threads vs 12 threads (6 threads + 6 hyperthreads)
Hyperthreaded beats non-hyperthreaded by 19.7%. Unless I'm reading your post wrong, this seems to be backwards of what you are claiming. And never mind about the Ryzen performance in this test.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 417 +658
You claim to be "mature," but then you promptly strawman me and insult me in the same paragraph? That's rich.
You must have no self awareness if you can praise yourself for being mature in one sentence and then promptly insult someone in the same breath.
And how would I get confused over this if I'm debating this issue in the first place? Either you're clearly not paying attention or your entire paragraph was just filled with immature ways to insult me.
This is for consumers who don't do as much research as folks who prowl tech forums. The label is commonly associated with features - specifically hyper threading. Consumers who bought an i7 in the past 10 years might assume the difference between and i7 and i5 would be hyperthreading - and rightfully so because that was Intel's marketing stance the last decade. A tech savy person wouldn't be fooled by Nvidia cutting down cores on the GTX1060 3GB, or, far worse - AMD marketing a stripped down version of the RX560 or Nvidia completely neutering their GT1030 with a DDR3 version....but the average consumer might be. Either way, it's clear the reason why Intel is doing this is so they can mark up prices on a more premium sounding I-9
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
Praise myself for being mature? I'm old, what praise are you talking about? I said that to show that I am not a snowflake, not a self-centered millennial. And what insult are you talking about? I asked a couple of questions. And this was after your condescending explanation of what an i7 is, as if you're explaining to children. Stop making things up to suit your compromised position. If you know better, why were you talking like a noob who would be so upset by people taken in by all this confusing nomenclature? You are an insult to the average reader's intelligence. Thanks for the heads up, now I know to ignore your confused babbling.
Not creating confusing within a product line with the same naming scheme is not "precious" it's called not being a douche. Do you think AMD and Nvidia don't get hate when they released weirdly named products?
This kind of practice should not be accepted at all otherwise we'll end up with chaos on the market. Not everybody is "mature" like you and reads tech sites to get the latest news on specs for new products.
Loosing HT could potentially mean that the new i7 CPU might be slower in certain heavily multithreaded workloads even though it gained 2 extra cores.
On a side-note, I believe this leak to be fake. I don't see how Intel will get 4.7GHz on all 8 cores, at stock configuration, even if they solder the IHS, without switching to 10nm. A 95W cooler just won't be able to handle it (even bigger ones will not be able to do it properly).
ShagnWagn
Posts: 1,297 +1,086
I liked your post for sharing the link, but your statement is not 100% accurate. Do you look up the two chips' details? Those two intel cores are different. The 8700k has higher clock speed, significantly higher turbo speed, and more cache, which makes a significant difference. There are also other slight differences. If the only difference in price premium were hyperthreading, that would be a ripoff.
Take a look yourself:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/core-vpro/i7-8700k.html
https://ark.intel.com/products/126685/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
YouTube adds more AI, but not everyone's happy about it- Hassanabi replied
