Ok after watching the video. I have to say that even if they are only 80% accurate. They are going to make a lot of money this year. They plan on doing a launch with over 80 motherboards available. Yes this is looking like a strong year for them.
As far as benchmarking goes, I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying that it's not true, I am just saying patience is a virtue.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
Even if their top cpu will be10 or 20 % slower than competitor from intel. They already won anyway. Just look at the ryzen prices. Intel crewed us for too long... Next is Nvidia...
Even if their top cpu will be10 or 20 % slower than competitor from intel. They already won anyway. Just look at the ryzen prices. Intel crewed us for too long... Next is Nvidia...
I'll wait for the unbiased, non cherry picked and 3rd party reviews on neutral hardware machines to come in, if the Zen is really that good, I'll get the 1700x or 1800 version in time. If it's about as good as Intel, also good: because it will make Intel work for their money again.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Maybe you don't know what HT is at the hardware level? When its disabled you are not disabling anything in the CPU. You are simply making it run like normal. When you enable HT you are making the hardware share resources and doing 2 threads per core. So turn it off and it runs 1 thread per core and doesn't share resources because the 1 thread is making full use of that 1 core. Split that into two threads and those two threads are sharing the resources from that 1 core.
Hyperthreading is when software makes 1 core look like 2. Its still 1 core it just acts like there is 2 instead of 1.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Maybe you don't know what HT is at the hardware level? When its disabled you are not disabling anything in the CPU. You are simply making it run like normal. When you enable HT you are making the hardware share resources and doing 2 threads per core. So turn it off and it runs 1 thread per core and doesn't share resources because the 1 thread is making full use of that 1 core. Split that into two threads and those two threads are sharing the resources from that 1 core.
Hyperthreading is when software makes 1 core look like 2. Its still 1 core it just acts like there is 2 instead of 1.
Sorry dude, but you're the one that does not understand HT. Go and educate yourself
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Maybe you don't know what HT is at the hardware level? When its disabled you are not disabling anything in the CPU. You are simply making it run like normal. When you enable HT you are making the hardware share resources and doing 2 threads per core. So turn it off and it runs 1 thread per core and doesn't share resources because the 1 thread is making full use of that 1 core. Split that into two threads and those two threads are sharing the resources from that 1 core.
Hyperthreading is when software makes 1 core look like 2. Its still 1 core it just acts like there is 2 instead of 1.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Maybe you don't know what HT is at the hardware level? When its disabled you are not disabling anything in the CPU. You are simply making it run like normal. When you enable HT you are making the hardware share resources and doing 2 threads per core. So turn it off and it runs 1 thread per core and doesn't share resources because the 1 thread is making full use of that 1 core. Split that into two threads and those two threads are sharing the resources from that 1 core.
Hyperthreading is when software makes 1 core look like 2. Its still 1 core it just acts like there is 2 instead of 1.
Sorry dude, but you're the one that does not understand HT. Go and educate yourself
For each processor core that is physically present, the operating system addresses two virtual (logical) cores and shares the workload between them when possible. The main function of hyper-threading is to increase the number of independent instructions in the pipeline; it takes advantage of superscalar architecture, in which multiple instructions operate on separate data in parallel. With HTT, one physical core appears as two processors to the operating system, allowing concurrent scheduling of two processes per core. In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
Because the software doesn't always deal with it effeciently. You are hoping that it recognizes that you only need 4 strong cores and it provides the resources without giving them to something else instead. Disabling HT does not disable resources. It concentrates them without relying on software to make that decision.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
Because the software doesn't always deal with it effeciently. You are hoping that it recognizes that you only need 4 strong cores and it provides the resources without giving them to something else instead. Disabling HT does not disable resources. It concentrates them without relying on software to make that decision.
Imagine that you're a CPU core. And imagine that you want to be productive. I've probably overtaxed your imagination already, but read on anyway.
In order to do work, you have to know which instruction to execute (i.e., what work to do), and you have to have the data to do the work on. Sometimes one or both of those is missing, so you can't do anything until they arrive.
What hyperthreading does is to say, we'll give you two different tasks to do at once. Both have their own stalls, so that sometimes data or instructions are missing on one or both tasks. But sometimes, the task that you would have regarded as your main one isn't ready to go, but you have everything you need to do something on the other task. Without hyperthreading, you'd have had to sit there doing nothing, but now you can do some work.
This only helps if you have a lot of work to do and spread among more threads than you have physical CPU cores. If there isn't a second task for you to work on while you're waiting on something for your first task, then hyperthreading doesn't gain you anything. That's why sometimes it doesn't help. But it doesn't hurt, either.
Whoosh, just like that Newegg and Amazon have sold all their Pre-Orders of the 1800x with resellers marking up to $750 on a pre-order. Got to wait and see how it pans out.
Whoosh, just like that Newegg and Amazon have sold all their Pre-Orders of the 1800x with resellers marking up to $750 on a pre-order. Got to wait and see how it pans out.
Exactly the reason why I wait 6 months after any hardware majorly hyped product, that and 1st gen is either upgraded very shortly after, or is just plain garbage.
Supply and demand AMD, Intel and Nvidia have played first adopters for fools for years.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
We live in a time where we can conveniently change our core settings. We can easily make profiles and call them up with the press of a button. In most everyday applications, it doesn't matter. But some applications it makes a hell of a difference. I have a handful of applications where I want to squeeze every bit of performance you can. HT with most of these applications serves no benefit and you can gain a couple hundred mhz and shed about 10 degrees under load with the HT disabled.
These days if you need to use HT or not, you just load your profile and go. Most the time it doesn't matter either way.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
We live in a time where we can conveniently change our core settings. We can easily make profiles and call them up with the press of a button. In most everyday applications, it doesn't matter. But some applications it makes a hell of a difference. I have a handful of applications where I want to squeeze every bit of performance you can. HT with most of these applications serves no benefit and you can gain a couple hundred mhz and shed about 10 degrees under load with the HT disabled.
These days if you need to use HT or not, you just load your profile and go. Most the time it doesn't matter either way.
If you're overclocking and if you actually know what you're doing. Most people don't and it's obvious in this thread. Even in your scenarios it would be interesting to measure at what points you see a benefit and the delta between the two scenarios and if those make real world differences. I say that because almost everything I do benefits explicitly from HT and multi-threaded scheduling.
This thread reminds of those people who used to tweak all these settings in windows to squeeze x percent more "efficiency" - memory, network latency, etc. It also reminds of those people who think they know better than doctors and go on about all these remedies and health insights. Someone reads an article on some enthusiast sight and suddenly they know better than a team of engineers with masters and doctors degrees and years of experience.
Some of these applications are based on 20+ year old code. As of today, these apps do not get any advantage from hyperthreading. The community is dreaming of the day that these apps to start taking advantage of all of today's technology. There are huge releases happening this year and the community really has their hopes up. Progress has been hampered by the desire to keep backwards compatibility with legacy products.
There are countless modules and mods. Some of the most impressive and demanding are the real world weather engines. http://hifisimtech.com/as16/#buynow
These sims today simulate the whole world and in more and more detail every year. Every little drop of performance you can get does make a difference and when you add all the small ones up it makes a heck of a difference.
In layman terms, this is one of the most comprehensive documents I have ever read about Overclocking. It doesn't just tell how to do it, it explains what your doing, why you're doing it and how things work. It's a heck of a document especially if you're a Haswell owner.
The difference between a vanilla and a tweaked out system in sims is night and day. The difference actually amazes me. It's not just about the ghz, though every one is a bonus it's about a well matched and tuned system.
Whelp I am convinced, time to put in my order I have been sitting on for a couple years. The budget has gotten quite large as a result of waiting so long. Got things purely for aesthetics.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
So they don't compete for resources... But we cannot say they are not affected by sharing. I mean look at all the games that people disable HT and never do we actually see it hurt performance. It is a slight hit to performance when HT is enabled which shows that the sharing of cores does have some kind of affect. They are just much better at dealing with it and soon I'm sure it will be completely different.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
If you only need 2 CPU cores, then the difference between having 4 available versus 8 available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 4 GB of memory, then the difference between having 8 GB or 16 GB available doesn't affect performance. If you only use 100 GB of storage space, then the difference between 1 TB available or 2 TB available doesn't affect performance. CPU cores can commonly be disabled in the BIOS, and while disabling memory or storage in the BIOS isn't necessarily so easy if it's part of a single device, having less than you could have had but still more than you need doesn't affect performance.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
We live in a time where we can conveniently change our core settings. We can easily make profiles and call them up with the press of a button. In most everyday applications, it doesn't matter. But some applications it makes a hell of a difference. I have a handful of applications where I want to squeeze every bit of performance you can. HT with most of these applications serves no benefit and you can gain a couple hundred mhz and shed about 10 degrees under load with the HT disabled.
These days if you need to use HT or not, you just load your profile and go. Most the time it doesn't matter either way.
If you're overclocking and if you actually know what you're doing. Most people don't and it's obvious in this thread. Even in your scenarios it would be interesting to measure at what points you see a benefit and the delta between the two scenarios and if those make real world differences. I say that because almost everything I do benefits explicitly from HT and multi-threaded scheduling.
This thread reminds of those people who used to tweak all these settings in windows to squeeze x percent more "efficiency" - memory, network latency, etc. It also reminds of those people who think they know better than doctors and go on about all these remedies and health insights. Someone reads an article on some enthusiast sight and suddenly they know better than a team of engineers with masters and doctors degrees and years of experience.
Some of these applications are based on 20+ year old code. As of today, these apps do not get any advantage from hyperthreading. The community is dreaming of the day that these apps to start taking advantage of all of today's technology. There are huge releases happening this year and the community really has their hopes up. Progress has been hampered by the desire to keep backwards compatibility with legacy products.
There are countless modules and mods. Some of the most impressive and demanding are the real world weather engines. http://hifisimtech.com/as16/#buynow
These sims today simulate the whole world and in more and more detail every year. Every little drop of performance you can get does make a difference and when you add all the small ones up it makes a heck of a difference.
In layman terms, this is one of the most comprehensive documents I have ever read about Overclocking. It doesn't just tell how to do it, it explains what your doing, why you're doing it and how things work. It's a heck of a document especially if you're a Haswell owner.
The difference between a vanilla and a tweaked out system in sims is night and day. The difference actually amazes me. It's not just about the ghz, though every one is a bonus it's about a well matched and tuned system.
Basically what they are saying is. When something comes along that demands the resources from 4 threads. Then the software won't run the 8 threads it will instead run the 4 threads at full power. But it is up to the software how this is handled and thats why I say it isn't perfect in this task. WIth the list of games below 10 that actually take advantage of 8 cores IDK why these people insist like this is the normal situation. Yes it is the future but it is not the normal. And just like various videos you can watch all day showing the fps slightly decreased on games where the HT was turned off. Its like they are in complete denial that this is normal. At least for a few more years anyways.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
Out of all the laughing and ridicule. This is the first post that actually told me what I was doing wrong. Thank you.
In addition, two or more processes can use the same resources: if resources for one process are not available, then another process can continue if its resources are available.
They don't compete for resources, HT puts a core that would otherwise be idle to good use processing a second thread that does have it's resources available.
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
There are also parts of the core that are duplicated, and that's the main cause of the performance benefit.
You could simply have asked him that if hyperthreading is simply one core doing two things, how comes processors with HT are still faster than those without, since on those without, a core can also do two things...
Perhaps you could tell us. If HT cores are so great then why don't games benefit from it?
Comments
As far as benchmarking goes, I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying that it's not true, I am just saying patience is a virtue.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Hyperthreading is when software makes 1 core look like 2. Its still 1 core it just acts like there is 2 instead of 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
So what exactly am I missing that is so wrong?
But again, I'm a sucker for throwing this out there, because seems like we've had this conversation before, many times. And it just doesn't stick.
HT enabled should run games faster but right now it just doesn't.
That doesn't mean that there's an advantage to disabling the extra resources, though, and what doesn't affect performance in one program might well affect it in another. So why would you disable resources that you paid for just because sometimes they're not needed?
In order to do work, you have to know which instruction to execute (i.e., what work to do), and you have to have the data to do the work on. Sometimes one or both of those is missing, so you can't do anything until they arrive.
What hyperthreading does is to say, we'll give you two different tasks to do at once. Both have their own stalls, so that sometimes data or instructions are missing on one or both tasks. But sometimes, the task that you would have regarded as your main one isn't ready to go, but you have everything you need to do something on the other task. Without hyperthreading, you'd have had to sit there doing nothing, but now you can do some work.
This only helps if you have a lot of work to do and spread among more threads than you have physical CPU cores. If there isn't a second task for you to work on while you're waiting on something for your first task, then hyperthreading doesn't gain you anything. That's why sometimes it doesn't help. But it doesn't hurt, either.
Exactly the reason why I wait 6 months after any hardware majorly hyped product, that and 1st gen is either upgraded very shortly after, or is just plain garbage.
Supply and demand AMD, Intel and Nvidia have played first adopters for fools for years.
These days if you need to use HT or not, you just load your profile and go. Most the time it doesn't matter either way.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
There are countless modules and mods. Some of the most impressive and demanding are the real world weather engines. http://hifisimtech.com/as16/#buynow
These sims today simulate the whole world and in more and more detail every year. Every little drop of performance you can get does make a difference and when you add all the small ones up it makes a heck of a difference.
In layman terms, this is one of the most comprehensive documents I have ever read about Overclocking. It doesn't just tell how to do it, it explains what your doing, why you're doing it and how things work. It's a heck of a document especially if you're a Haswell owner.
http://www.simforums.com/forums/haswell-48ghz-on-air-building-a-haswell-system_topic46180.html
The difference between a vanilla and a tweaked out system in sims is night and day. The difference actually amazes me. It's not just about the ghz, though every one is a bonus
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee