Search the Community

Does disabling Simaltanious Multitreading and or Hyperthreading hurt preformance in other games more than just marginally? So I just found out that I have a game that dislikes multithreading. It runs well on my Laptop with a i7-9750h but not on my PC with a i7-13700kf. Both have Hyperthreading enabled, so I am guessing that the 13th gen has SMT where to old 9th gen does not. This brings me back to the question above. Also if I disable SMT how badly will that impact other programs out side of gaming? I apollogies if this is not the right place to post this topic. I was not certain since it kind of covers a multitude of areas.

Hey everyone, i recently bought an hp z400 workstation with an xeon w3565 4c8t, and when got it i turned im on and i noticed the hyperthreading was disabled so i had 4c4t then when i turned the hyperthreading on i was getting 2c4t and i tried so much diferent things but nothing seem to solve the problem, i'm hoping to get some tech tips from you guys. Thanks!!! :})

Hi All Following some issues with my current setup, I've got a 3950x on the way as well as the majority of other pieces and I'm getting things prepared in advance. One of the things I'm looking at doing is settings core affinity for specific programs I'm using frequently or require more compute to run optimally. Here are my questions: What is the most reliable way to find your best performing/consistent cores/threads? Do you run a single threaded benchmarks on each core/thread and see which scores highest? Whilst researching I found people that claimed a performance/stability loss if setting core affinity to threads that weren't matched to the cores they are paired with. They said something about it being better to match them as this way it uses the same allocated cache. How do you know which thread belongs to which core (using a quad core for example)? Is it something like CPU 0+1, CPU 2+3, CPU 4+5, CPU 6+7 Or is it something like CPU 0+4, CPU 1+5, CPU 2+6, CPU 3+7 Is it possible to stop Windows from using specific cores/threads for programs you want to ensure run at their highest level? Eg, I set a game or work application (I don't game when working so I can be safe knowing they will not be operating at the same time and overload these cores) to run on 6 specific cores/threads, I don't want Windows to ever load these 6 cores/threads with tasks in the background etc. Ideally I want to use the best performing cores for this, so if they are say 0-5, can I reserve these? Alternatively if this is not possible, then it sounds like I could set them to use the last 6 cores/threads on the CPU as Windows wouldn't load these unless there was enough work to require it, or is Windows indiscriminate and will try to load cores evenly? Here are some example issues of what I am doing to try and keep things clean/stable: As above, test to find which cores/threads are best and allocate to programs Overclock and tighten memory timings Undervolt and overclock CPU+GPU Run tests on performance matching infinity fabric with timings etc Raid 0 the 2 or 3 drives Actually another question if someone knows? I've bought the Aorus Xtreme x570 and in my haste realised the m.2s are split between CPU and chipset. Is it possible to raid 0 all 3 or can I only raid the 2 on the chipset? I don't believe I had an issue in other builds but they were using gen 3 and I'm not sure if they were split between CPU and chipset. This is mostly just wanting to test things out and play around/learn, I know that it's not really necessary for what I'm doing to raid0 gen 4 drives. Raid backup the install onto an SSD. Keep installs of programs tidy so that I can more easily test how programs/background tasks are impacting workload. One of the main reasons I started researching core affinity. I love my Razer Orbweaver, I have a Corsair Scimitar I quite like and a decent Corsair keyboard. I plan to use RGB Fusion to handle lighting (I'm not a fan of RGB but white/very pale blue I like along with the occasional change to switch things up) and may have missed out some others. This will leave me with at least 3 different pieces of software for lighting/peripherals and having watched a good amount of videos on this along with GN's extreme look at this, you can see that they're a problem with hampering performance in terms of lowering averages but can cause major stutters. I hate iCUE with a passion and Synapse can be a pain. I looked at AHK for reallocating keys on both but I couldn't find anything concrete saying that they work well due to lack of onboard memory. It would also be a bit of a pain to have less control on lighting software. Ideally with these kinds of software I want to allocate them to a specific core/thread that will affect more intensive programs the least. I will be testing before/after installing them as well as combinations to see how performance is affected (hopefully after spacing out the programs with affinity) and if it is still too affected then I may get rid of my keyboard and mouse as I'd prefer to go back to a Naga anyway.

Does CompTIA not know about SMT or am I missing something?

Hello, I just bought the new AMD Ryzen 1700 cpu, MSI B350 Gaming Pro Mobo, and a 32GB Kit of G.Skill Aegis. OS is Windows 7. As of right now I have No Idea why my Hyperthreading on my Ryzen cpu is Disabled. I Don't have any Overclocking right now, and It was working before (See attachment), I have tried a Cmos reset, but that hasn't fixed my problem. Windows is set to High Performance and none of my cores are parked. I have another drive that has My windows 10 OS and it also shows 8 cores with no hyperthreading. Am I doing something wrong, or is it some sort of bug I happen to have? Will Post Mobo Bios pics if you need them. (System) AMD Ryzen 1700 MSI B350 Gaming PRO 32GB G.Skill Aegis Ram 980TI 850 Watt PSU

Hey all. I am wondering about the new Ryzen's does anyone know if we will be able to disable the HT on them for better overclocking, i am only asking since they seem to be so cheap that one could buy the upper tier 6 core and disable the HT for a kick ass overclocking(pardon my french) Thanks in advance.

Which build is better for gaming? Prices are similar so I don't really care. p.s Don't look at the price on pcpartpicker Intel Build: (Price I will pay in my local pc shop for these parts will be 237.00 €) https://pcpartpicker.com/list/YQPnFd AMD Build: (Some parts are not available in that pc shop so I will order them and will cost me 240.00 €) https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mcHBY

So, from what I have seen, the G4560 performs remarkably close to the i5 6400 for nearly a third of the price. I know this is by no means superior, but would it be more budget friendly and smarter to buy the Pentium when on a 5-600 budget. This could either allow me to wait less for the money towards my parts or improve my graphics card, which is currently an XFX RX 480 4GB?.

i have a xeon x5670 and running windows 10 and I've been monitoring my computer with hwmonitor on a separate monitor while playing games. i could see all 12 cores six physical and six hyperthreaded 0 through 11. just as of today I can't see cores 3 4 5 6 7 or 11 which I assume is hyper threading. hyperthreaded is turned on I don't know what I did to make it to where hw monitor doesn't see it. I'm seeing the performance hit in my games as well. i can get above 70 fps no problem in gta v and now i cant get above 50 and the world map fps sat above 150 and now its all over the place. task manager says that I have 6 cores and 12 logical processors device manager has 12 listed hw monitor is the only one that is saying that it can't see all 12 and ever since it stopped seeing all 12 that's when my performance tanked. plz halp

Just curious, is there any actual reason why a 4C/8T chip, for example, should be more expensive than a 4C/4T chip of the same clock speed, architecture and all that? Do they cost more to produce, or even produce any more heat? Or is one thread per core, like locked multipliers, just an arbitrary limitation?

This is where I bump into the limits of my understanding of hyperthreading. A classic analogy is that adding more cores is like adding more mouths for eating food. Adding hyperthreading is like adding more hands to help you get the food to the mouths. Now, let's look at a 4-core machine in two scenarios: * 4 true cores with no hyperthreading * 3 true cores with 1 hyperthreaded core. I know this doesn't exist on real CPUs but this is possible to create by setting up processor affinity, which is where the real-world application of this question comes in: Is there ever a case where one could get better performance from an application by assigning it 3 true cores and one hyperthreaded "core" rather than assigning it 4 "true cores?" If we go back to the food analogy, is there ever a case where it's better to have 3 mouths and 2 hands, rather than 4 mouths and one hand? When described this way, I can almost certainly say "yes" but I have a feeling this analogy breaks down somewhere, which is where the limits of my understanding come in. is there ever a case where a hyperthreaded "core" is preferrable to assigning another true core to an operation?

Hey guys, I'm a fairly smart guy in his 20s, and i need help deciding on a CoffeeLake 8th Gen Intel CPU. I've been looking at i5-8600k (not the 8400, which Linus tested but not the 8600k *sad face*). I want it for hard complex gaming everything from Paradox games, to FPS, and to all the latest graphic intensive games. Also, might wanna stream, but not professionally. I only do limited video editing and photoshopping (I'm a professional actor.) So now that, that's out of the way: My decide did included AMD, but as of this month, not anymore. Mainly between i5-8600k and the i7-8700, maybe the i7-8700k (but i don't need that beast.) I do plan to learn to overclock. So here are the stats that differ for a referance: i5-8600K - (only) 6 threats, 3.6 Base Frequency, 4.3 Turbo, (only) 9mb Cache, (only) 1.15gHz Graphic Frequency, and does not have Hyper-Threading. i7-8700 - 12 threads, (only) 3.2 Base Frequency, 4.6 Turbo, 12mb Cache, 1.2gHz Graphic Frequency, but does have Hyper-Threading. So the stats go back and forth on which is better, but I don't know which is better for me. The turbos are both fine and both are 6 cores, so is the i5's higher base frequency better for me than the down sides (mainly looking at the lack of hyperthreading.) Does the 3mb of cache matter? Does the .85mHz of graphics frequency matter? (I know even a new graphics care can be the bottle neck most of the time. Haven't bought a Graphics Card yet, want to decide on CPU first.) Also, do i need the other 6 threads that the i7 has? It doesn't seem to matter as much with the higher frequencies... they out perform the AMD CPUs which are all about the multi-threading.... (FYI, i don't understand how to value the cache with all of this.) Any help of understanding the what is more valuable would be amazing help! Obviously there is like a $45 difference and i love the value of this i5-8600k, best on the market. I just wanna know this CPU will be good for gaming and such for the next few years.

Fudzilla wrote an article about how intel's Skylake and Kabylake CPUs have a broken Hyperthreading and users must disable it for the meantime. Originally from debian.org - Fudzilla - This doesn't only affect Linux systems but other systems as well. ...i5 users rejoice! ...perhaps

Please be aware that the newly discovered problem SK27 https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/6th-gen-x-series-spec-update.pdf affects Sky/Kaby Lake and you should seek a BIOS update to rectify (mostly likely not available yet, just keep an eye out). https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/6th-gen-x-series-spec-update.pdf If you are doing mission critical work (e.g. not games) then disabling hyper-threading until you can patch the microcode is advisable, as whilst its easy to reproduce with certain applications, its difficult to predict if/when it will occur in the applications you use. This was reported on the Debian mailing list: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00308.html

Im thinking about getting me a new PC. But I can't decide on what CPU I want - while it should be either a i5-6600k or a i7-6700k. The question I have here is: Do current and upcoming games utilize more than 4 cores decently or is a quad-core still the way to go?

Hey there, folks. I have what is probably a really stupid question that has always been a slight curiosity of mine. My laptop is a GS63VR, and it gets around three hours of battery life outside of gaming. Could disabling hyperthreading on the i7-6700HQ yield any tangible benefit in terms of battery life? Thanks for reading my dumb question!

Will hyperthreading on a 6850k help or hurt gaming performance

So i was planning to upgrade my cpu, I did some research and found Intel i5-9400f processor, it has 6 core and no hyper threading it is very cheap for a 9th gen processor, so that made me wonder what made it so cheap and will it run better than processor with quad core hyperthreading.

Anyone know how to fix this? im suppose to get 8 threads. How to enable HyperThreading? MOTHERBOARD: MSI-Z87-GD65 im pretty sure i didnt update the mobo since 2013 no idea

Similar to what Google has done with Chrome OS, Apple has now published a patch for Safari and provided documentation on how to disable hyper threading on all Macs through Terminal. The OS update patches the flaw in Intel CPUs through Safari, and Apple recommends installing only Apps from the Mac App Store to avoid potential risks. However for users who use applications from outside the App Store and are concerned about these vulnerabilities, Apple suggests disabling hyper-threading. These security updates have been rolled out and are available to Macs running Mojave, High-Sierra, and Sierra. The following Macs are not compatible with the security updates due to Intel not providing the necessary micro-code at this time: MacBook (13-inch, Late 2009) MacBook (13-inch, Mid 2010) MacBook Air (13-inch, Late 2010) MacBook Air (11-inch, Late 2010) MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2010) MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2010) MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2010) iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2009) iMac (27-inch, Late 2009) iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2010) iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010) Mac mini (Mid 2010) Mac Pro (Late 2010) All other Mac's should be able to update and take advantage of the fix in Safari as well as the optional hyper-threading fix. According to internal testing, disabling hyper-threading can lead to up to a 40% drop in performance. It is rather unfortunate that Intel CPUs have been plagued by so many security vulnerabilities and the latest has resulted in having to knee-cap your CPU to nearly half of its performance just to fix the exploit. I can't help but wonder how mad Tim Cook and Dan Riccio (head of Hardware Engineering at Apple) are with Intel at these recent developments. All of this makes we wonder if anyone at Apple is looking into the possibility of building Ryzen based Macs seeing as they are currently not vulnerable to these security exploits that are massively hurting the performance of not just Macs, but all Intel based computers. I can't say I would mind seeing a Treadripper based Mac Pro or Ryzen based Mac Mini. Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210107

I just upgraded to a quad core I5 no HT CPU just to play R6 since they cut support on dual core CPUs. Now I still get freeze and crash to desktop right on round start when map/characters are loaded. I started big topics on Ubisoft forums and Steam forums and had this everywhere on media since I was on dual core. They didn't give any info or detail about what happened or what did they broke it's a crazy CPU support list related issue and no one on the big gaming news sites wrote a review about this: 20% of players can't access R6 anymore after Burnt horizon patch. They just told us to upgrade from 2 cores to 2 cores with HT or 4 cores as their system requirements but now I still have this problem unsolved and I'm above the system requirements. Help

I'm wondering if two cpus made by the same company around the same time with the same or a very similar clock speed and the same number is cores would have different TDPs if one had hyperthreading and the other didn't. Anyone know this?

I was watching the "Use your Gaming PC's Extra Power as a NAS Ultimate Guide" video and Linus brought up the "hyperthreading" term when explaining what CPU you would need for a desktop/NAS that supports virtualization. Now I was searching about the interwebs and was seeing that Intel uses this technique whereas AMD uses SMT technology. Can anyone give me a clear description between the two if there are any differences or if they are similar?

Hello peeps! Took me way to long to finally join this forum, but now I'm here! I would like to ask a maybe very basic question. I have better knowledge of computer parts than most people I know, but I am in no way as "tech-y" as most people I've met online, haha.. I've been wanting to upgrade my CPU for a while now. I currently have a 4790k, and it still gets the job done very well. But, I really want the features of the newer chipsets, like M.2 support, and DDR4 support. So with a very basic googling and watching of LTT videos, I've come to the conclusion of either gushing out the big bucks and buying an i9 (living in florida, I don't think I have the year-round cooling capacity for an i9 tho haha), or deciding between a 9700k and a 8700k. But an issue cropped up that is still incredibly confusing to me; Hyperthreading. I watched Luke's video explaining what it is and how it works, but I still don't understand the real-life benefits to having it. The 9700k has more cores, and a higher turbo clock, but no HT. Meanwhile the 8700k has less cores, and a (slightly) smaller turbo clock, but has HT. What is the actual performance-to-performance difference between a CPU that has HT versus one that doesn't? The two CPUs are pretty much the same price, so is one more worth the money or not? I mainly use my computer for gaming and light video editing. (I can live without blender renders lol) Is a different CPU more worth it? I'm not quite sure if I'm ready to jump ship and switch to team red just yet. Should I just wait another year or two? Any suggestions/information would be greatly appreciated :)

Hello, I currently have a Intel i5-4590 3.30 GHz on a MSI Z97-G43 motherboard and I think it is time to upgrade the CPU. I am thinking about buying one with 16 cores at a price range max. 350€/$ but I am not that much into PC tech so thats why I create this topic. 1. Can someone explain to me how Hyperthreading works? Is it when active like aditional cores for the already exciting or.. (idk)? 2. Should I wait for the CES because the CPU's gonna drop in price? 3. I proberly gonna need a new Mainboard if I buy a new CPU so could someone please find a good CPU and a fitting motherboard? (I think a AMD cpu would be the right choice but idk) 4. I recently bought new RAM so I now have DDR3 1600 2x4 & 1x8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport. Do I need new RAM too or do RAM sticks not have diffrent plugs? I know its a bit much asked for but please help me Best Regards Daniel current specs (idk maybe its usefull) CPU: Intel i5-4590 3.30 GHz GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB Mainboard: MSI Z97-G43 RAM: DDR3 1600 2x4 & 1x8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport Power Supply: 600W CoolerMaster B2