Jump to content

Leaked benchmarks show Intel is dropping hyperthreading from i7 chips


Jason
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Does this matter for typical user?

 

5 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

To gamers, I don't think it makes much of a difference since Intel is upping their core counts to 6/8. For future proofing, I don't like it though.

 

One opinion from the Ars comments:

 

Quote

I'm going to be honest. I never noticed any real world gains with hyperthreading [with things like gaming]. I did notice huge stability improvements when OCing and turning hyperthreading off (translating into higher OCs, translating into higher per core performance, especially notable on anything not able to take advantage of more than one or a couple of threads very well). Granted that was with a chip that's now about 5? generations old. I haven't bothered reading many recent articles on hyperthreading performance, but my impression is that the picture hasn't really improved much over the years.

So, personally, I'd absolutely prefer an 8 core i7 over a 6 core/12 thread one. I wouldn't have bothered buying an i7 over an i5k before this change. Now it would at least be a consideration.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/leaked-benchmarks-show-intel-is-dropping-hyperthreading-from-i7-chips/?comments=1&post=35726105#comment-35726105

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jason said:

Hyperthreading does help in gaming with lower core counts. The best example is the i7 7700k which was the best gaming chip for a long time. It was only 4 cores but had 8 threads. In the future, IF games take advantage of more threads, then having 12 thread or 16 threads could mean smoother gaming compared to 8 cores 8 threads. As of right now, it doesn't seem to help much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jason said:

So, personally, I'd absolutely prefer an 8 core i7 over a 6 core/12 thread one. I wouldn't have bothered buying an i7 over an i5k before this change. Now it would at least be a consideration.

 

I think the real problem is that this is a tradeoff that shouldn't have to be made.  Intel should be offering i7's with 8c/16t at a similar value as old 6c/12t processors.  This is called progress; this is what you get when you innovate in the chip industry.  When a new, more efficient design comes out and/or you have a new, smaller process node, you get more for your money.  But what they are now doing is shifting the pricing tier up by calling the 8c/16t processors an i9 and charging more money for it.

 

And yeah, Hyperthreading has made a huge difference on four core processors, since games have started using more than four cores.  HT is also very helpful for multitasking, rendering, and encoding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other weird thing is that the i9 9900k (not sure that's enough 9s) is a "mainstream" platform CPU, on the Z370/390 chipset. i9 was introduced on the HEDT LGA2066 platform and it makes sense there.

 

Now the separation of i9, i7, i5 is rendered completely arbitrary and nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...