No it's not the same. Hyperthreading tries to use unused portions of a core but they are not complete cores which is the problem. Programs just so happen to get bottlenecked on the resources that aren't un-utilised far too often for hyperthreading to be effective, and it ends up costing more in far too many situations to have hyperthreading on. It's a nice idea in theory (trying to use something that is unused) but in practice it just simply doesn't work.I guess I did use clockspeed, lol. I meant that as more of a statement, you could replace that with the tiny IPC gains we've been seeing and it would be the same result.
Saying Hyper-Threading is a failure is like saying we will never overcome the inefficiencies of Multiple cpus cores. If we can't find a way to utilize all the cores then we are going to have issues in the consumer market. If you can't get CPUs to divide the work among cores properly it's going to reflect in the software as well and vice versa. If it can be done via software it can be done via hardware.
It doesn't cost Intel a lot to put it in granted but they must actually achieve a perf benefit!