I'm afraid you've got it a bit confused... HT is present on Intel processors up to the 14th generation. It's not present on the 15th (ULTRA)...

but most PC enthusiasts would probably rather have it and be able to disable it than outright not have the option

If I am not mistaken, it makes cores bigger. I believe the idea behind removing HT, was to make P cores smaller, living room for more P cores or even more E cores. And because consumers can somewhat understand cores, but not threads, from a marketing perspective advertising 40 cores instead of 40 threads was preferable.

CEO noted this while talking about data center. Diamond Rapids will be a one off without it.
But HT is not returning to client designs. No product on their latest client roadmap has it. If it is returning it's 2029+.

Unless they got some breakthrough with quad way SMT I don't see the point. E cores already cover more than adequately the MT performance part of SMT, what else do we need that thing for?

Thing is, stuffing more E cores into desktop CPU's doesn't really help gaming since they are still too crap to run games primarily on them. Where using HT/SMT on larger fast cores, they are still large fast cores where you want to run the game.

I don't think Intel can get around the fact that games prefer large fast cores with fuck ton of L3 cache to make framerate go up. I don't know the numbers, but I'd say SMT is helping 9800X3D and not nerfing it like it was years ago where SMT often wasn't beneficial. I think those days are long gone.

ClaudioI'm afraid you've got it a bit confused... HT is present on Intel processors up to the 14th generation. It's not present on the 15th (ULTRA)...

And this is being shown on the front page. Yikes. Perhaps he was thinking like... meteor lake? Or maybe he was considering RL and RL refresh the same gen, which is kinda fair I guess, since they are the same silicon, but if we are to do that, then we might have to consider removing some other intel gens too and that would get messy and really confusing.

But yeah its probably just a mistake.

RejZoRThing is, stuffing more E cores into desktop CPU's doesn't really help gaming since they are still too crap to run games primarily on them. Where using HT/SMT on larger fast cores, they are still large fast cores where you want to run the game.

I don't think Intel can get around the fact that games prefer large fast cores with fuck ton of L3 cache to make framerate go up. I don't know the numbers, but I'd say SMT is helping 9800X3D and not nerfing it like it was years ago where SMT often wasn't beneficial. I think those days are long gone.

Smt does indeed help the 9800x 3d (in heavy core usage games) but that's because it has a core deficit. If zen 6 comes with 12 core CCDs i guarantee SMT will be entirely pointless, the 10800x 3d with 12 cores in a single ccd will be faster with SMT off in every single game.

Also its not the case that ecores dont help in games. They definitely do, not so much in averages but 1% lows go way up with ecores on.

RejZoRThing is, stuffing more E cores into desktop CPU's doesn't really help gaming since they are still too crap to run games primarily on them.

Some Users, maybe some Intel cpu owners, will disagree on that point.

I'm not fond of E-Cores.

--

I do not want to see SMT. Too many security issues. More cores with same instructions with less cache may be the better approach.

SMT is beneficial, on AMD platform you get 15% more perf. at no increase in power draw.
Intel was stupid to abandon SMT (HT). Yep, there were multiple security issues present but
instead of abandoning whole SMT technology, they should have make a proper redesign.
Which will they do now. Better late than never, right?

IMHO, SMT is better than e-cores/LP cores, as it:
- does not require additional physical space;
- does not differentiate between instruction sets;
- scheduler issues are much lesser than with multiple types of cores.

By the way, WCCFtech is spreading a rumor that Intel will abandon e-cores and LP cores with generation after Nova Lake.
Having 16-24 good old fashioned P-cores with SMT might be a future. Intel needs another Sandy Bridge effectivity miracle.
i7-2600K was such an amazing processor.

8 or 16 real cores, no SMT please.

LittleBro- does not require additional physical space;

It does require some space.

iameatingjamIt does require some space.

It's negligible compared to space required by physical cores.

LittleBroIt's negligible compared to space required by physical cores.

True. It doesn't require much space, as compared to how much benefit you get in some multi threaded tasks, hence why its been used for so long. Just wanted to clear up that it isn't completely free space wise.

Whether its worth it or not... depends on chip, how many cores, and the job.

LittleBroSMT is beneficial, on AMD platform you get 15% more perf. at no increase in power draw.
Intel was stupid to abandon SMT (HT).

So untrue... :(

You get the SMT benefit ONLY when you have an application that can fully load all the threads, because at least on Intel CPUs the SMT threads are emloyed as the last ones as the intensity of the task increases, because they are the weakest. For normal people running normal tasks the SMT has no benefit at all.

It DOES draw more power, requires more die area and of course brings more complexity with all the connected drawbacks.

BoggledBeagleSo untrue... :(

You get the SMT benefit ONLY when you have an application that can fully load all the threads

False.

BoggledBeagle, because at least on Intel CPUs the SMT threads are emloyed as the last ones as the intensity of the task increases, because they are the weakest. For normal people running normal tasks the SMT has no benefit at all.

With SMT the job can be done quicker and thus reduces overall power required to do the task (cumulated power draw over time).
Also, don't judge AMD's SMT implementation by Intel's one.

BoggledBeagleIt DOES draw more power, requires more die area and of course brings more complexity with all the connected drawbacks.

I strongly suggest you to read this article: www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-zen5-smt/8

ClaudioI'm afraid you've got it a bit confused...

Everyone is confused, including Intel it seems, they remove and add features without much thought.

RejZoRThing is, stuffing more E cores into desktop CPU's doesn't really help gaming since they are still too crap to run games primarily on them. Where using HT/SMT on larger fast cores, they are still large fast cores where you want to run the game.

I don't think Intel can get around the fact that games prefer large fast cores with fuck ton of L3 cache to make framerate go up. I don't know the numbers, but I'd say SMT is helping 9800X3D and not nerfing it like it was years ago where SMT often wasn't beneficial. I think those days are long gone.

Ever heard of BeamNG Drive? I disabled all but 1 p cores and used the 16 ecores in that game and it ran extremely well. E cores are not capable like most think and the arrow lake e cores have some serious power to them

If SMT is only a 15% area saving for 20% less performance, just add real cores.

Tyler-98-W68Ever heard of BeamNG Drive? I disabled all but 1 p cores and used the 16 ecores in that game and it ran extremely well. E cores are not capable like most think and the arrow lake e cores have some serious power to them

Because the game isn't graphically demanding, it's computational because of physics applied to rigid bodies and there all it maters is moar cores. Where with actual games you need fast cores and just enough of them to drive everything just right. You can't compare that.

_roman_Some Users, maybe some Intel cpu owners, will disagree on that point.

I'm not fond of E-Cores.

--

I do not want to see SMT. Too many security issues. More cores with same instructions with less cache may be the better approach.

It's odd how Intel hasn't made GAMING processor with just big cores and crap load of cache. Surely their new approach can just glue whatever together with tiles...

LittleBroSMT is beneficial, on AMD platform you get 15% more perf. at no increase in power draw.
Intel was stupid to abandon SMT (HT).

Well of course a cpu that was designed with smt in mind will do worse when you disable it, lol. The question is, is it worth the 5-10% extra die space that it requires or would you prefer something else for that die space

LittleBroFalse.

With SMT the job can be done quicker and thus reduces overall power required to do the task (cumulated power draw over time).
Also, don't judge AMD's SMT implementation by Intel's one.

I strongly suggest you to read this article: www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-zen5-smt/8

You seem to be strongly confused.

Saying that something is false without telling why is a waste of time.

What "job" are you talking about? Be specific. If you look on the broad spectrum of normal PC users, how many people could benefit from it and in what extent?

Why are you even mentioning AMD, this thread is about Intel. I own/ed Intel CPUs and I carefully observed how thread utilisation works and what is the benefit of HT and it is exactly how I explained. May I ask you what experience do you have with Intel CPUs?

BoggledBeagleSo untrue... :(

You get the SMT benefit ONLY when you have an application that can fully load all the threads, because at least on Intel CPUs the SMT threads are emloyed as the last ones as the intensity of the task increases, because they are the weakest. For normal people running normal tasks the SMT has no benefit at all.

It DOES draw more power, requires more die area and of course brings more complexity with all the connected drawbacks.

It doesnt really draw more power, for the same amount of power (say 150w cap) the smt on cpu will be faster than the smt off. It will run on lower clocks of course, but it will still be faster since smt will outweight the lowered clockspeeds.

LittleBroSMT is beneficial, on AMD platform you get 15% more perf. at no increase in power draw.
Intel was stupid to abandon SMT (HT). Yep, there were multiple security issues present but
instead of abandoning whole SMT technology, they should have make a proper redesign.
Which will they do now. Better late than never, right?

IMHO, SMT is better than e-cores/LP cores, as it:
- does not require additional physical space;
- does not differentiate between instruction sets;
- scheduler issues are much lesser than with multiple types of cores.

By the way, WCCFtech is spreading a rumor that Intel will abandon e-cores and LP cores with generation after Nova Lake.
Having 16-24 good old fashioned P-cores with SMT might be a future. Intel needs another Sandy Bridge effectivity miracle.
i7-2600K was such an amazing processor.

The thing is that Hyper-Threading gives as much performance as the core is bottlenecked. Meteor Lake got 7% in integer and 13-14% in floating point tasks, while Arrow-lake/Lunar-lake are even less bottlenecked.
Hyper-threading is a crutch and is usually there to maximize profits by allowing for simpler and smaller cores, but of course requires software optimization and creates vulnerabilities with all the exploits we've had since 2017.

Intel won't get another Sandy Bridge as it was entirely carried by 32nm being a massive improvement over 45nm and AVX. Realistically outside of AVX Sandy had only 8-11% higher IPC, but it had 25-30% higher clock speeds due to the 32nm process node. And of course having native AVX sped up everything that needed it by a ton.

JustBenchingWell of course a cpu that was designed with smt in mind will do worse when you disable it, lol. The question is, is it worth the 5-10% extra die space that it requires or would you prefer something else for that die space

Meteor-Lake got up to 7% integer performance and up to 13-14% floating point performance from Hyper-Threading, that's because the core was not bottlenecked much, Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake(Lion Cove and Skymont) are even less bottlenecked so the benefit would be even smaller.

Vya DomusEveryone is confused, including Intel it seems, they remove and add features without much thought.

There is thought behind it. Patt wanted to have the best architecture, the new CEO wants to maximize profits.

Hyper-Threading only yields performance to bottlenecked cores, Meteor Lake was already a very well done, almost non-bottlenecked core. Thus hyper-threading gave only up to 7% integer performance and up to 13-14% floating point performance for the cost of 15% die size.

Arrow Lake(Lion Cove and Skymont) is even less bottlenecked, so that means that it would gain even less performance from Hyper-Threading.

On the other hand Zen cores are very bottlenecked and they gain 15-30% performance.

Also Hyper-Threading is a major vulnerability.

N/AIf SMT is only a 15% area saving for 20% less performance, just add real cores.

On Meteor Lake it was 7-14% more performance for 15% more area, because the core was not bottlenecked much. Arrow Lake cores are even less bottlenecked so it would give even less performance.

This guy got it all wrong. When you are behind competition you need to double your efforts to be able to catch up, not cut jobs.

Who's gonna make the innovations intel needs to get back in the game? The ghosts of fired people?

So reading the 1st post here is my take

• Datacenter - We have NO way of competing in the short/mid term against AMD and ARM without the use of SMT. The security concerns around SMT are outweighed by the performance deficit we would be left in without it.
• Client - No changes in inital architecture/plans but that leads to
• Longterm plans - New architectures are required and we cant just keep iterating on current ones. ALL new designs have to be reviewed and approved by me before going to actual hardware testing.

My guess is regarding the longterm plans is to try and getaway from the multi platform offerings Intel seems to have a thing for in the datacenter. Also I would suspect there has been a bit too much freedom between the different teams to suit their own needs (Datacenter/Client) with little to no co-ordination causing design decisions that have hurt them.

rattlehead99Hyper-threading is a crutch and is usually there to maximize profits by allowing for simpler and smaller cores

Which is wrong as HT actually adds a small amount to the die area per core due to the more complicated front end required.

BoggledBeagleWhat "job" are you talking about? Be specific. If you look on the broad spectrum of normal PC users, how many people could benefit from it and in what extent?

And you can argue the same point about having a core desinged focusing on any single task load. Having something that is purely focused on Database may not be ideal for someone doing scientific work and the one designed for scientific work will be imbalanced for gaming etc. For example. how many games are really taking advantage of AVX512 instructions and even the lower versions. How impacted would scientific work be in a core without any of those instructions.

SMT was that tool that suited the mantra "perfection is the enemy of good enough". By using SMT they were able to utilise an "imperfect" core design for certain tasks but still perform admirably across a wide breadth of tasks

RejZoRIt's odd how Intel hasn't made GAMING processor with just big cores and crap load of cache. Surely their new approach can just glue whatever together with tiles...

Never going to see it as from a business perspective as it makes 0 sense. Your spinning a completely bespoke design for a market around 2% of the PC market that arent even people who spend big on these parts either. I would love to see it as I can imagine a pure P core design with limited graphics etc similar to AMDs IO Die output would be a really interesting proposition.
www.statista.com/outlook/amo/media/games/gaming-hardware/gaming-pcs-laptops/worldwide