maybe you just don't get it. Hyper Threading or SMT (AMD) actually bad for modern Operating System in general. I also hope AMD will drop SMT soon. Because Raw Cores are always better than 2 virtual Threads. One of main reason, Hyper Threading or SMT was invented all the way back to early years of 2000s . This is to overcome execution time. However, as Transistor Gate becoming smaller and smaller, down to 5 nm , Hyper Threading or SMT becoming more prone to Glitches and Errors because of unintended physical Electrons jump (Quantum Jump) within the Transistor Gate when you don't want it to happen, will likely happen. So the simplest way to solve this, is by removing Hyper Threading altogether and increasing Core Counts. And I hope AMD will soon follow this logic because they knew this Unintended Quantum Jump is unavoidable if they want to move forward.
@niezzayt3809 I think they should only do this when they can compensate for hyper threading with more cores / replacement technology / giving is more cores to keep the same amount of threads I'm probably way less educated than you but isn't hyper threading about just running two processes on 1 core simultaneously, so when a core doesn't have anything to do it just switches to doing another process? And of course it comes at ~20-30% slower operating speed per thread
@@РоманПлуталов-м7ь running two process is exactly the definition of shooting waves of electrons twice, that's interpreted as 1 or 0 (binary) This is fine up to 7nm, but when you go 5nm or smaller gate, the errors will likely to happen because of the nature of electrons itself. You can't go against Law of Physics after all. Therefore removing HT is the most logical choice. Imagine this. 10nm gate, with HT, 10 Transistors row, 10 Transistors line, total 100 Transistors. Now shrink that to 5nm gate, No HT, 20 Transistors row, 20 Transistors line, total 400 Transistors within the same surface area of previous 10nm gate. You literally Quadruple the number of Transistors by going from 10nm to 5nm, and removing HT, while still twice as fast. In theory if 5nm can handle HT without errors, it will also be 4x as fast, but no, the error is unavoidable.
@@РоманПлуталов-м7ьthe other guy is the definition of dunning Kruger. He's talking out of his ass. When the CPU is idle waiting for data from memory, SMT allows the CPU to switch to another thread with ready for execution data, it means you can squeeze more performance out of the backend without adding an entire core, AMD zen squeezes an extra 20% performance from the cores, this is far better than the old P4's extra 5% and the atom with like 1% extra. Personally if AMD isn't dropping SMT, I don't think Intel is making a smart decision here, they're probably working around a flaw or getting desperate for something else. SMT makes a lot of sense for code that's heavy on pointer chasing like C++ video games, database engines and ray tracers (blender).
Intel literally cannot do that. The ring bus is what makes intel decent for gaming, the ring bus can only do 8 fast cores, the rest might as well be plugged into a pcie slot. That's why they're doing "e" cores, nothing to do with efficiency.
It's kind of like AMD managing only 8 cores max on each CCD. Anything more requires another CCD which has to cross the infinity fabric, which increases latency and hence, worse gaming performance.
@@PineyJusticeall the E-cores are attached to the ring-bus too, the real issue is the P-core is massive and power hungry, you can't put much more in there without blowing the power/heat budget and wasting die space
Getting rid of hyperthreading makes a fair bit of sense now we have multiple real cores, especially the large numbers of e-cores to handle multicore workloads
It only makes sense if the E-core is smaller than the extra circuitry needed to get the same amount of bonus performance from SMT. Core to core latency is worse than SMT too, Zen 4 cores are smaller and have SMT so AMD can put 16 of them in a CPU, I can't think Intel is making a lot of money with these chips considering how big they are.
Splitting multiple tasks around multiple threads is just so much nicer and easier to allocate tasks. I program daily and its such a lifesaver. Curting that in half is just dumb.
@@0AThijs That was certainly true in the single-core and low core-count days Now, instead of splitting tasks over multiple virtual threads, they can be split over multiple actual cores of which modern CPUs have plenty And said cores can now be more simple without the extra transistors needed to support multithreading
Tbh, HT/SMT just doesn't make sense anymore given the shear quantity of physical cores tham are available. It may have been worth it back in the dual/quad core days, but as soon as we hit 8 and beyond it ceased to really be worth it for almost all day to day desktop tasks.
I literally wanted to write the same thing, after all, hyperthreading has disadvantages that cannot be avoided, I'm honestly surprised that only now Intel has put this topic aside, and I'm surprised why AMD still uses it
Don't want to defend their new products but I think getting rid of hyperthreading makes sense at this point. Helps getting higher ghz. Could be one of the main reasons to buy intel in the near future.
This explains why an Intel i5 13-14th gen has the same amount of cores as a Ryzen 9, their "real" cores are the same as the Ryzen 5 7600 but people portray it as some sort of multi-core beast, it's pretty much the same for the laptop versions.
Dont get the negative comments. With the i7 being the same for gaming as the i9 thats great for gamers. And hyperthreading has never done anything for gaming. So them dropping that is good for gamers as well. All of course under the assumption that the price is adjusted accordingly. If youre purely gaming youve been paying for HT and e cores for no reason
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's like the end of the '90s going into the 2000s where we had flip phones and then we ended up going into touchscreen phones. We're on the verge of massive change within the technological industry and the electronics industry. It just takes one person who can come up with a way to change everything. We'll see what happens
Which is not even a bad thing. i9 never made sense for gaming now ‘the best’ at least has a product definition. Thread numbers don’t matter that much unless the collective speed isn’t faster than last gen. Let’s hope we don’t have another 10th gen.
Actually, moving away from hyperthreading is a very good move in terms of time, I believe that AMD will also abandon this technology soon. it brings little profit at the expense of problems
@@f.9344regular p cores at idle reduce clock speed heavily, not to mention you can also undervolt to get maximum efficiency and heat reduction while maintaining similar if not the same clock speeds
I welcome HT removal. And for gaming performance of I9 vs I7, game has limit to utilize multiple cores effectively, so it is very natural saturation. It is called Amdahl's law.
It actually makes more sense now. Intel is copying AMD and how the Ryzen 7 is better for gaming and the Ryzen 9 is better for productivity. Thus you don’t have a CPU trying to do everything all at once leading to horrible efficiency. And it makes some sense to change the naming scheme because 1. The new chips have an NPU 2. the 14900K tainted the core i9 branding 3. AMD copied the 3, 5, 7 naming scheme which hurts product differentiation 4. the 285 265 245 225 numbers suggest there could be a 290 270 250 230 gaming variant or refresh like the 5700 X3D
I have always liked Intel more BCS of the marketing and BCS it's possible to learn and remember all the different CPUs but now I'm rather going with amd Intel sucks till they do normal names I like amd more
Its not like it, i know that's looking like shit, i also don't think those cpu's will be so muche better in terms of efficiency, but dropping hyperthreading is a good thing, for gamers at least, also hyperthreading is repaced by E cores... At least it looks like it... Noone knows what intel is doing right now. It will be "Hit or Shit"
Hyper Threading or SMT (AMD) actually bad for modern Operating System in general. I also hope AMD will drop SMT soon. Because Raw Cores are always better than 2 virtual Threads. One of main reason, Hyper Threading or SMT was invented all the way back to early years of 2000s . This is to overcome execution time of any Instructions Set. However, as Transistor Gate becoming smaller and smaller, down to 5 nm , Hyper Threading or SMT becoming more prone to Glitches and Errors because of unintended physical Electrons jump (Quantum Jump) within the Transistor Gate when you don't want it to happen, will likely happen. So the simplest way to solve this, is by removing Hyper Threading altogether and increasing Core Counts. And I hope AMD will soon follow this logic because they knew this Unintended Quantum Jump is unavoidable if they want to move forward.
You have no clue what you're talking about, "quantum jump" is the wrong terminology. quantum tunneling affects the entire lithography process not just SMT features. The choice of including SMT or not is purely down to die area cost and performance trade offs.
Intel really takes the Intel in intelligence out of the chips
Ligence?
Intel evolving backwards is just sad
maybe you just don't get it.
Hyper Threading or SMT (AMD) actually bad for modern Operating System in general.
I also hope AMD will drop SMT soon. Because Raw Cores are always better than 2 virtual Threads.
One of main reason, Hyper Threading or SMT was invented all the way back to early years of 2000s . This is to overcome execution time.
However, as Transistor Gate becoming smaller and smaller, down to 5 nm , Hyper Threading or SMT becoming more prone to Glitches and Errors because of unintended physical Electrons jump (Quantum Jump) within the Transistor Gate when you don't want it to happen, will likely happen.
So the simplest way to solve this, is by removing Hyper Threading altogether and increasing Core Counts.
And I hope AMD will soon follow this logic because they knew this Unintended Quantum Jump is unavoidable if they want to move forward.
@niezzayt3809 I think they should only do this when they can compensate for hyper threading with more cores / replacement technology / giving is more cores to keep the same amount of threads
I'm probably way less educated than you but isn't hyper threading about just running two processes on 1 core simultaneously, so when a core doesn't have anything to do it just switches to doing another process?
And of course it comes at ~20-30% slower operating speed per thread
The rationale for getting rid of smt is actually quite sound. There's a good reason why none of apples chips have it.
@@РоманПлуталов-м7ь running two process is exactly the definition of shooting waves of electrons twice, that's interpreted as 1 or 0 (binary)
This is fine up to 7nm, but when you go 5nm or smaller gate, the errors will likely to happen because of the nature of electrons itself. You can't go against Law of Physics after all.
Therefore removing HT is the most logical choice. Imagine this. 10nm gate, with HT, 10 Transistors row, 10 Transistors line, total 100 Transistors.
Now shrink that to 5nm gate, No HT, 20 Transistors row, 20 Transistors line, total 400 Transistors within the same surface area of previous 10nm gate.
You literally Quadruple the number of Transistors by going from 10nm to 5nm, and removing HT, while still twice as fast. In theory if 5nm can handle HT without errors, it will also be 4x as fast, but no, the error is unavoidable.
@@РоманПлуталов-м7ьthe other guy is the definition of dunning Kruger. He's talking out of his ass.
When the CPU is idle waiting for data from memory, SMT allows the CPU to switch to another thread with ready for execution data, it means you can squeeze more performance out of the backend without adding an entire core, AMD zen squeezes an extra 20% performance from the cores, this is far better than the old P4's extra 5% and the atom with like 1% extra.
Personally if AMD isn't dropping SMT, I don't think Intel is making a smart decision here, they're probably working around a flaw or getting desperate for something else.
SMT makes a lot of sense for code that's heavy on pointer chasing like C++ video games, database engines and ray tracers (blender).
JUST GIVE ME 10 P-CORES PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
Intel literally cannot do that. The ring bus is what makes intel decent for gaming, the ring bus can only do 8 fast cores, the rest might as well be plugged into a pcie slot. That's why they're doing "e" cores, nothing to do with efficiency.
It's kind of like AMD managing only 8 cores max on each CCD. Anything more requires another CCD which has to cross the infinity fabric, which increases latency and hence, worse gaming performance.
@@PineyJusticeall the E-cores are attached to the ring-bus too, the real issue is the P-core is massive and power hungry, you can't put much more in there without blowing the power/heat budget and wasting die space
@@flyinghigh1868 Incorrect, AMD has 16 core CCDs, but bandwidth to them does become a big problem.
@@woobilicious. Wrong, the ring bus cannot deliver adequately to the extra cores, they are connected, but not in the same way as the P cores.
"THE NUMBERS MASON! WHAT DO THEY MEAN?"
Getting rid of hyperthreading makes a fair bit of sense now we have multiple real cores, especially the large numbers of e-cores to handle multicore workloads
It only makes sense if the E-core is smaller than the extra circuitry needed to get the same amount of bonus performance from SMT. Core to core latency is worse than SMT too, Zen 4 cores are smaller and have SMT so AMD can put 16 of them in a CPU, I can't think Intel is making a lot of money with these chips considering how big they are.
But some app i use need it to even just run ! Or VM need it.
Splitting multiple tasks around multiple threads is just so much nicer and easier to allocate tasks. I program daily and its such a lifesaver. Curting that in half is just dumb.
@@0AThijs That was certainly true in the single-core and low core-count days
Now, instead of splitting tasks over multiple virtual threads, they can be split over multiple actual cores of which modern CPUs have plenty
And said cores can now be more simple without the extra transistors needed to support multithreading
@@spartan8705 Being able to control the flow is so much more convenient but whatever you say.
The editor need a raise
Fr
Yes I followed that completely. Not confused at all 🙃
Tbh, HT/SMT just doesn't make sense anymore given the shear quantity of physical cores tham are available. It may have been worth it back in the dual/quad core days, but as soon as we hit 8 and beyond it ceased to really be worth it for almost all day to day desktop tasks.
even 9700K is HT off
I can setup a program to use both cores and threads. Allocate tasks to threada and certain tasks to the cores themselves. This is just unnecessary.
did they bring back avx 512 or at least similar avx instruction
Oh my God, I have never been this early to one of his videos
why am i not suprised with this...
I literally wanted to write the same thing, after all, hyperthreading has disadvantages that cannot be avoided, I'm honestly surprised that only now Intel has put this topic aside, and I'm surprised why AMD still uses it
Don't want to defend their new products but I think getting rid of hyperthreading makes sense at this point.
Helps getting higher ghz. Could be one of the main reasons to buy intel in the near future.
The naming convention makes me think someone passed out on the keyboard and fell over the num pad.
They did that with their laptop chips first. And i do like the power efficiency fixation for laptops, will also bennefit pcs in a lot of ways
265? 285? I feel like im looking at pre-ryzen pre-"core i" (or mobile) chips where i have no idea what that means at a glance relative to older gens
That's probably ( in my opinion ) a way to start some kind of new generation. I think it will look like "1265 and 2265" but its just my speculation
Black Ops home menu!!!
I don’t understand why they would take away, literally one of the best features of their products. 🤷🏼♂️
Well tbh with E cores and P cores.. I don’t know if HT is worth it? Instead of just adding more physical cores, a mix of E and P
really glad i’m still on my 10850K
This explains why an Intel i5 13-14th gen has the same amount of cores as a Ryzen 9, their "real" cores are the same as the Ryzen 5 7600 but people portray it as some sort of multi-core beast, it's pretty much the same for the laptop versions.
There's a reason they are advertising 6-8 cores as like 24 core chips lol, it works and people believe it
and due to the e-cores, avx512 still isn't supported.
Yay, they finally are making things more complicated for no reason
What is with the allergy to even numbers? No ultra 6 or 8, no ryzen 6 or 8. What’s going on here?
I know for ryzen at least the even numbered gens go to mobile CPUs iirc
@@Ryzard not the generations but the different tiers in a given generation
Dont get the negative comments. With the i7 being the same for gaming as the i9 thats great for gamers. And hyperthreading has never done anything for gaming. So them dropping that is good for gamers as well. All of course under the assumption that the price is adjusted accordingly. If youre purely gaming youve been paying for HT and e cores for no reason
I wish it was all P.corex
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's like the end of the '90s going into the 2000s where we had flip phones and then we ended up going into touchscreen phones. We're on the verge of massive change within the technological industry and the electronics industry. It just takes one person who can come up with a way to change everything. We'll see what happens
Which is not even a bad thing. i9 never made sense for gaming now ‘the best’ at least has a product definition.
Thread numbers don’t matter that much unless the collective speed isn’t faster than last gen. Let’s hope we don’t have another 10th gen.
Intel is taking the Nvidia route of making their products worse for some reason
Actually, moving away from hyperthreading is a very good move in terms of time, I believe that AMD will also abandon this technology soon. it brings little profit at the expense of problems
No hyper threading?! What the hell???!
AMD?✅
Intel was good before 13th gen i guess 13 is really an unlucky number
Intel doesn't really seem to get the message that we don't need e cores in a desktop
i do. i do a lot of idle shit, this will reduce the wattage use and energy is fucking expensive in germany.
@@f.9344Same in Poland
@@f.9344regular p cores at idle reduce clock speed heavily, not to mention you can also undervolt to get maximum efficiency and heat reduction while maintaining similar if not the same clock speeds
It seems not everyone is appreciative of e cores and multi tasking
I welcome HT removal. And for gaming performance of I9 vs I7, game has limit to utilize multiple cores effectively, so it is very natural saturation. It is called Amdahl's law.
Is it true that you're Zach's neighbor? Or is he lying
Im about to be an amd guy, oh wait...
14700к
Single 3124
multi 21942....
When companies f up bad they switch names so when they search the new name the old problems and lawsuits won't show up as much of at all
im still calling them ix-15xxx's lol
It actually makes more sense now.
Intel is copying AMD and how the Ryzen 7 is better for gaming and the Ryzen 9 is better for productivity.
Thus you don’t have a CPU trying to do everything all at once leading to horrible efficiency.
And it makes some sense to change the naming scheme because 1. The new chips have an NPU 2. the 14900K tainted the core i9 branding 3. AMD copied the 3, 5, 7 naming scheme which hurts product differentiation 4. the 285 265 245 225 numbers suggest there could be a 290 270 250 230 gaming variant or refresh like the 5700 X3D
Intel might just have to do like AMD with their gpus to be honest.
It all just Stupid, I want the 15th gens..
Real
An Intel come back will occur!
Tf is core ultra 9 285k when it could be fucking i9 15900k what are they doing
I have always liked Intel more BCS of the marketing and BCS it's possible to learn and remember all the different CPUs but now I'm rather going with amd Intel sucks till they do normal names I like amd more
And they wonder why they are slowly going bankrupt
herbert
how does intel manage to screw up this badly, they were good because of hyperthreading
looks like Intel did the same with cpus that AMD did with gpus! Gave up.
Its not like it, i know that's looking like shit, i also don't think those cpu's will be so muche better in terms of efficiency, but dropping hyperthreading is a good thing, for gamers at least, also hyperthreading is repaced by E cores... At least it looks like it... Noone knows what intel is doing right now. It will be "Hit or Shit"
intel is on life support and it’s cutting its own supply cables 💀
amd doesn’t even need to try lol
Similar to intel, you get stranger and stranger.
Hyper Threading or SMT (AMD) actually bad for modern Operating System in general.
I also hope AMD will drop SMT soon. Because Raw Cores are always better than 2 virtual Threads.
One of main reason, Hyper Threading or SMT was invented all the way back to early years of 2000s . This is to overcome execution time of any Instructions Set.
However, as Transistor Gate becoming smaller and smaller, down to 5 nm , Hyper Threading or SMT becoming more prone to Glitches and Errors because of unintended physical Electrons jump (Quantum Jump) within the Transistor Gate when you don't want it to happen, will likely happen.
So the simplest way to solve this, is by removing Hyper Threading altogether and increasing Core Counts.
And I hope AMD will soon follow this logic because they knew this Unintended Quantum Jump is unavoidable if they want to move forward.
You have no clue what you're talking about, "quantum jump" is the wrong terminology. quantum tunneling affects the entire lithography process not just SMT features.
The choice of including SMT or not is purely down to die area cost and performance trade offs.
@@woobilicious. I know Quantum tunneling. I just use Layman Term for people to understand
day 3 of asking for a pc even if it's a cheap one
gonna stick with amd
lol
Ah the life of unemployment
@@ghostlyinterceptor7756 real
What a fcn joke