so cute, meanwhile ... from the other side ... iirc all range of their line has it ... not only the overpriced top dog line ...

noel_fsto me it looks ridiculous, disabling ht is just autistic for me.

Actually autistic people are often very logical, so did you mean to say "not-autistic"?

Not sure how much we should care about HT these days. It would be nice if somebody with a processor with a lot of cores (8 or more) could run a few tests to see what the difference is with it on and off. Tests that span across a variety of workloads, like heavy threaded loads like video encoding, and workloads that benefit from fast single thread performance, but not so much from a ton of threads (games?). I've seen a ton of benchmarks, but I don't recall seeing one like that.

It's also kinda silly all the bitching about HT in this thread, considering the top model is still endowed with it. There has always been two K models since K models have been a thing, one with and one without HT; Coffee Lake being the exception, which has 3 models, a quad with no HT, a hex with no HT, and a hex with HT. Also, all HEDT chips have had HT, with the one exception of that i5 Kaby Lake chip. Ryzen 5 and up has SMT. Threadripper has SMT. Nobody is taking HT away. Who is buying these chips that also needs HT anyway? If you really need all those threads, you should either be looking at Threadripper, x299, or a proper server setup if you really need 9001 threads. If you demand top single thread performance AND threads, then the 9900k is for you. Beyond that you'll have to prioritize your needs/wants. You can't have super high core counts and super high clock speeds at the same time, unless you get a x299 chip, a serious cooling system, and a bit of luck in the silicon lottery wouldn't hurt. It's been that way since the beginning of time. Remember all those debates about whether C2D or C2Q was better because C2D was hitting higher clock speeds, but C2Q had 4 cores instead of 2? Same difference today, just bigger numbers. It's like asking for a Mack truck that also could also outrun all the other vehicles at the Daytona 500, or a 747 that can outmaneuver an F-22.

nemesis.ieActually autistic people are often very logical, so did you mean to say "not-autistic"?

I think he has Autism confused with mental retardation.
People on the spectrum are often extremely clever.

solder just means that intel are having thermal problems.. i would guess that removing HT is part of the same problem..

trog

Anyone else wanna say "Thank You AMD"? :p

trog100solder just means that intel are having thermal problems.. i would guess that removing HT is part of the same problem..

They may have, but lack of HT is just product positioning. They did the same thing earlier. This time they're just stretching the lineup.
7-series - i3: 2C+HT, i5: 4C, i7: 4C+HT
8-series - i3: 4C, i5: 6C, i7: 6C+HT
9-series - i3: 4C, i5: 6C, i7: 8C, i9: 8C+HT

Higher segment (iN) means better total performance, assuming (correctly) that 1C/2T < 2C/2T.

If you'll think about it long enough, you should (hopefully) arrive at a conclusion that activating HT on other CPUs makes no sense. :-)

trog100solder just means that intel are having thermal problems.. i would guess that removing HT is part of the same problem..

trog

Considering the 65W i7-8700 overheats like a dog locked in a car on a sunny day with their stock cooler, I don't think adding two cores and upping the clock speeds helps, no. HT probably doesn't do all that much, though - I've seen reviews do HT-vs-non-HT testing for power draw, and while it's higher, it's not dramatically so. Still, even if these are for enthusiasts, don't come with stock coolers, and likely will work okay even under a Hyper 212 Evo if you crank up the fan, they'd likely be banging their heads against that TJunction spec pretty quick with anything less than a 240mm AIO when turboing.

DammeronAnyone else wanna say "Thank You AMD"? :p

Absolutely. Intel needed a push, but instead they got a kick in the nuts. They're still ahead, but their performance lead has shrunk from >100% faster to ~20% faster in best-case scenarios, all in a bit more than a year. That has to be scary as hell.

notbThey may have, but lack of HT is just product positioning. They did the same thing earlier. This time they're just stretching the lineup.
7-series - i3: 2C+HT, i5: 4C, i7: 4C+HT
8-series - i3: 4C, i5: 6C, i7: 6C+HT
9-series - i3: 4C, i5: 6C, i7: 8C, i9: 8C+HT

Higher segment (iN) means better total performance, assuming (correctly) that 1C/2T < 2C/2T.

If you'll think about it long enough, you should (hopefully) arrive at a conclusion that activating HT on other CPUs makes no sense. :)

I think you're right about the segmentation thing. Intel loves this (as they love all opportunities to split up the market and earn more money). Also, for gaming, the 8c8t will likely be entirely on par with the 8c16t (except for the 100MHz clock deficit), meaning that they can sell the i9 to people wanting to do video editing or other work where HT has a tangible effect (for more money, of course!).

Very nice move indeed, don't forget to say "thanks" to AMD for this ;)

I'm willing to bet that those clocks are only on 1-2 cores

Durvelle27I'm willing to bet that those clocks are only on 1-2 cores

You'd likely lose that bet.

No word on power draw under all-core turbo, of course.

Ahh, Intel, thanks for throwing the fanboys a crumb from the engineers table. This will really make up for all the performance losses due to security patches.

INTEL DID NOT CONFIRM THIS.
A LEAKED slide did.
Be careful when choosing your words. @btarunr

RejZoR6 and 8 core CPU's without HT in 2018. Clock or not, this is incredibly poor. I have a 6 core CPU with 12 threads. Sure, it doesn't clock to 4.x out of the box, but come on, with manual overclocking, I have it at 4.5GHz and 12 freaking threads. TWELVE! The IPC gain is nowhere near as significant as some say it is on newer CPU's, it's basically just gains from higher clocks. 5820K is 4 years old. One would expect things from HEDT to finally trickle down to normies ranges by now. I guess Intel just can't get out of their skin...

9600K should be 6c/12t
9700K should be 8c/16t
9900K should be 10c/20t

With HEDT far beyond that starting at 16c/32t. Sigh.

8 physical cores at 5ghz crush any 6c+6t, trust me. Physical cores are way superior to HT/SMT

ValantarYou'd likely lose that bet.

No word on power draw under all-core turbo, of course.

I’ll wait for actual reviews and not what leaks say or PR

Manu_PT8 physical cores at 5ghz crush any 6c+6t, trust me. Physical cores are way superior to HT/SMT

And double the threads are way superior to whatever you clock half as much threads for loads that require them. Given how basically everything is multithreaded without limitations these days, having just physical cores and no SMT is just ridiculous. Unless it's a budget CPU where cuts need to be made and is understandable. It sure as hell isn't on a product that will cost 400€ for sure.

RejZoRI guess you're one of those kind of people who like to get ripped off and they are even proud of it in the end. XD 4 years newer CPU barely "whips" it. Wow, what an achievement lol

Silly point considering how much x99 and 5820k cost.

Only reason for gamers to choose HT CPUs was the lack of CPUs with enough physical cores, HT was always a half assed solution. It was much smarter to go with 4790k/5775c and upgrade to 9700k now than go with x99, pay a sick premium for something that neither was the best solution back in 2014-16 nor is it now.

RejZoRAnd double the threads are way superior to whatever you clock half as much threads for loads that require them. Given how basically everything is multithreaded without limitations these days, having just physical cores and no SMT is just ridiculous. Unless it's a budget CPU where cuts need to be made and is understandable. It sure as hell isn't on a product that will cost 400€ for sure.

You are making a very stupid mistake in your thinking. Just cause games can utilize HT does not mean there's equvalency between physical cores and HT, e.g. 8c/8t and 6c/12t. There isn't. Physical cores will always be better and HT is known to take a hit on games that rely heavily on single threaded perfromance

www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,42

RejZoR6 and 8 core CPU's without HT in 2018. Clock or not, this is incredibly poor. I have a 6 core CPU with 12 threads. Sure, it doesn't clock to 4.x out of the box, but come on, with manual overclocking, I have it at 4.5GHz and 12 freaking threads. TWELVE! The IPC gain is nowhere near as significant as some say it is on newer CPU's, it's basically just gains from higher clocks. 5820K is 4 years old. One would expect things from HEDT to finally trickle down to normies ranges by now. I guess Intel just can't get out of their skin...

9600K should be 6c/12t
9700K should be 8c/16t
9900K should be 10c/20t

With HEDT far beyond that starting at 16c/32t. Sigh.

8c/8t will outperform 6c/12t at the same speeds.

Manu_PT8 physical cores at 5ghz crush any 6c+6t, trust me. Physical cores are way superior to HT/SMT

Do you mean 6c/12t?

What I do like from both camps heading to a point where you just pop in a CPU and it'll try to go as high as it can by itself. Similar to graphic cards where overclocking almost became pointless unless you're really trying to squeeze out every MHz. I do like fiddling with overclocks, but sometimes you just want to pop the thing into the case and have it run near peak speed without having to fiddle with it for hours, days or weeks sometimes to figure things out.

Doubling of core counts.
Launching a new generation of CPUs without changing the socket or chipset.
Going back to solder.

All in less than a year, interesting how quickly things have changed.

RejZoRWhat I do like from both camps heading to a point where you just pop in a CPU and it'll try to go as high as it can by itself. Similar to graphic cards where overclocking almost became pointless unless you're really trying to squeeze out every MHz. I do like fiddling with overclocks, but sometimes you just want to pop the thing into the case and have it run near peak speed without having to fiddle with it for hours, days or weeks sometimes to figure things out.

It really is very convenient. I mean 4.6GHz is hella fast out of the box, now just set the multiplier to same value as single core turbo (4.9-5.0), add a few mV if needed and you're set. I wouldn't even bother to run any extensive stress testing, just pop the cpu,change a few values in and you're ready to go.

ValantarHT probably doesn't do all that much, though - I've seen reviews do HT-vs-non-HT testing for power draw, and while it's higher, it's not dramatically so.

HT is just an optimization. It uses CPU time that us otherwise wasted (but still using some electricity).
As a result HT gives you anywhere between 20 and 50% performance gain (depending on task) for maybe 10% more power draw.
Clearly, 10% more power draw means even less additional heat.

Suggestions from some forum members that Intel drops HT because of heat issues are groundless at best...

Absolutely. Intel needed a push, but instead they got a kick in the nuts. They're still ahead, but their performance lead has shrunk from >100% faster to ~20% faster in best-case scenarios, all in a bit more than a year. That has to be scary as hell.

Not really. AMD just got back on the semiconductor development curve. :-)
There's really no physical reason why 2 large CPU companies wouldn't be making fairly equivalent products (technology-wise).
AMD was sub-par for a while not because they didn't have access to know-how or fabs, but because - as a company - they were a mess.

I think you're right about the segmentation thing. Intel loves this (as they love all opportunities to split up the market and earn more money).

Why would they not love to earn money? :-)
Intel greatly simplified their CPU lineup with the Core naming scheme. Most people don't care about the precise model - they simply look at the i3/5/7 designation.
So for Intel it is important to keep the i3 < i5 < i7 in check.
6C/12T would be more or less as fast as an 8C/8T, so why make both?

hatNot sure how much we should care about HT these days. It would be nice if somebody with a processor with a lot of cores (8 or more) could run a few tests to see what the difference is with it on and off. Tests that span across a variety of workloads, like heavy threaded loads like video encoding, and workloads that benefit from fast single thread performance, but not so much from a ton of threads (games?). I've seen a ton of benchmarks, but I don't recall seeing one like that.

I have a 12c/24t system, I run it with HT off as the Adobe suite doesn't scale past 16 threads and it's noticeably slower running 12c/24t than 12c/12t.

UpgrayeddI want that 9700K designed with no iGPU in mind, not a disabled P version. HEDT is too damn expensive..

So you want an HDET chip without the HDET price, when the disabled version will not draw any extra power, as has been established time and time again?

Protip: stop being poor and begging for such a chip. If you dont want to pay intel prices, buy AMD. Intel isnt going to make an extra special die cheap for you guys that dont want to pay for it, stop asking for it.

hatNot sure how much we should care about HT these days. It would be nice if somebody with a processor with a lot of cores (8 or more) could run a few tests to see what the difference is with it on and off.

The usefulness of HT decreases with the number of cores to the point where it might even hurt multithreaded performance. This isn't exactly news but it's largely unknown to most people.

www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/Hyper-Threading-may-be-Killing-your-Parallel-Performance-578/

Single core performance can be hurt too by hyperthreading.