If Intel weren't a monopoly, would Hyper-Threading be considered junk?

[KC_Toronto]

So,

Hyper-Threading is difficult to explain, difficult to quantify, difficult to optimize software for, and yet has a definite $100 price tag attached to it. ( i5 to i7 )

The performance boost ranges from negative to +45% and cannot be predicted.

I was a Director of Sales in the past, and if I were in charge of a sales campaign to train regional sales reps on selling Hyper-Threading to consumers, I would be bombarded with questions by these sales reps and without concrete answers available.

We all take for granted that we pay extra for Hyper-Threading merely because we are cornered into it.

[jurian123]

Nah i like hyper threading. 

 

But, they could make more cores instead of hyper threading. With logical cores u have better performance. But virtual cores are cheaper. 

[Nup]

You make an interesting point. Now i don't know a whole lot about hyper-threading so I may not be too qualified to answer this. 

 

But if you look at the hardcore tech enthusiast community it's clear they they don't mess around with poor products. If something isn't worth getting, they wont get it. 

 

Well that's my take on it, so maybe there is an element of truth to what your saying, which most likely has something to do with the case. I do think that 100 dollars is a little much for this. 

 

Also, welcome to the forums, nice to have you here  

[WoodenMarker]

HT is a technology that can improve performance. It's pretty normal to charge more for more performance. 

Moving thread to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory. 

[Dabombinable]

Well hyper threading was needed on P4s because they were slow without it so...

[Ssoele]

Well, say, you buy an i5-4690K for 220USD and you buy an i7-4790K for 320USD.

 

The i7 costs you ~45% more.

The performance difference is somewhere between 20-75%, depending on the application.

 

Taking into account that the power consumption under load isn't that different and they you of course pay a bit of a premium for higher-end products, I think that the price increase is justified.

[KC_Toronto]

lol,

Oops, I meant to focus the topic about Monopolies.

I mention Hyper-Threading as a case study. ( thus General forum )

Monopoly.

In an alternate universe where we have alternative choices, we would all be .. being less polite about HT.

[tobben]

Hyper threading can also be practical when allocating resources to different tasks, having

8 threads to play around with, smaller portions as opposed to having entire cores for 

everything. A bigger portion of the overall available computing power.

[harrynowl]

It's more useful with longer pipelines, stops some stages from sitting idle/being wasted.

 

But it's not something you can explain to customers.

[Darel]

Yeah man.. you're on to something.. like most of amd new tech.. mantle (wich is in my opinion the best thing since dx9), yeah.. now they are making the new dx12 which is actualy the same shit like mantle... but yeah... the monopol is always 'the best' tech and 'the best' in everything... intel fans gonna hate me... but thats a part of the truth... sad truth

[Guest]

Yeah most people don't need it but its great for those with ADD

Attention Deficit Disorder?

[Faa]

difficult to optimize software for,

It doesn't require any support, just a 2nd software thread to utilize the 2nd hardware thread which is the same requirement for a 2nd physical core.

[GeathX]

It doesn't require any support, just a 2nd software thread to utilize the 2nd hardware thread which is the same requirement for a 2nd physical core.

 

So would some one optimise just to 4 physical cores or try and plan for the 4 extra virtual cores, which varies performance wise? Think that might be what the poster was getting at.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Hyper-Threading is difficult to explain, difficult to quantify, difficult to optimize software for..

The performance boost ranges from negative to +45% and cannot be predicted.

 

It doesn't require any support, just a 2nd software thread to utilize the 2nd hardware thread which is the same requirement for a 2nd physical core.

 

So would some one optimise just to 4 physical cores or try and plan for the 4 extra virtual cores, which varies performance wise? Think that might be what the poster was getting at.

as Faa said it all happens on it's own...no need for any king of ''optimisation'' or ''special programming'' for hyper-threading to do it's magic...it's a technology built into the CPU

and it helps a lot just look at scores from an i3 vs a pentium in games for example.

[Speedbird]

 

 

as Faa said it all happens on it's own...no need for any king of ''optimisation'' or ''special programming'' for hyper-threading to do it's magic...it's a technology built into the CPU

and it helps a lot just look at scores from an i3 vs a pentium in games for example.

Then why do we see no difference when comparing a 4790K and a 4690K in gaming?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Then why do we see no difference when comparing a 4790K and a 4690K in gaming?

Because most games arent intensive enough to exploit those CPU's to the point where it would make a noticeable difference in most games...

And in some games it can actualy already make a difference if you have a strong enough GPU configuration to notice it (watchdogs, crysis 3, dragon age inquisition or ACU for example)...but usualy the performance difference is only noticed at such high FPS (120 vs 145FPS for example) that you'd need to run the games on 720p to see the increase in performance...but as time will go and games will get even more intensive i think it can safely be assumed that the CPU's won't be able to output that many frames in upcoming modern titles and the gap between the i5 and i7 will start to show a fair bit more.

Also many games take advantage of 6 or 8 cpu threads but spreading the load across many CPU threads won't really help when the CPU cores are so strong to begin with...except if the game is really CPU instensive and can push one or many cores of the i5 to 100% on a consistent basis, and not many games can do that so far outside the one's that i've mentionned.

TLDR: it would need a game that can bring the i5 on it's knees, doing so while pushing 6 or 8 heavy threads at it in order to really appreciate what the i7 has to offer above the i5 performance...such games will come out in the years to come that's a given...nobody knows when though...some are already pushing on the i5 pretty hard, but not hard enough just yet to see a real tangible benefit from hyper-threading for the most part.

and even then it won't be night and day...we are talking around a 30% extra gaming performance at best.

[Midnight]

It doesn't require any support, just a 2nd software thread to utilize the 2nd hardware thread which is the same requirement for a 2nd physical core.

 

That's not quite true. It needs OS support and Intel recommends users to disable HT if the OS doesn't know about it.

[WoodenMarker]

Then why do we see no difference when comparing a 4790K and a 4690K in gaming?

Games aren't well optimized enough and there isn't as much of a need for cpu power once you have enough. It's like how more water won't make a rock more wet after a certain point.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Games aren't well optimized enough and there isn't as much of a need for cpu power once you have enough. It's like how more water won't make a rock more wet after a certain point.

...until the rock gets big enough that you need more water to make it all wet

like the analogy there though...

[ThomasD]

Not sure I'm following the argument, or the question.

 

Exactly how is Intel a monopoly?  It is not the only company producing CPUs and the hyperthreading they employ on some of their products is not even patented, it is merely a proprietary implementation of a broadly understood concept.

 

Nothing is stopping other companies from making CPUs and nothing is stopping anyone who does make CPUs from implementing some form of hyperthreading.

 

But even so, arguendo, if someone else were to implement hyperthreading on their product(s), the net effect on Intel's pseudo "monopoly" would be an and/or situation of multiple implementations to program for (thereby driving up the price of software development)  or direct competition of like-enough implementations, leading to some sort of price decrease for hyperthreaded CPUs, which then might have the net effect of making software developers more apt to take advantage of whatever benefits the technology offers.  Which then might increase demand for both products - thus leading to prices not much different than what we have now.

 

Do not confuse a market niche for a monopoly.

[KC_Toronto]

Great points, ThomasD.

In Business School, the definition of a Monopoly versus a 'cornered market' was determined by a company's behaviour.

Hyper-Threading can be used as proof that Intel has achieved the status of a monopoly.

$100 is a very large amount of money in PCs.

Hyper-Threading is the 3rd or 4th most expensive asset in a mid-range or high end computer.

However, Hyper-Threading is a small niche feature that will only benefit a small number of users, yet it is purchased in high volume. The result is that most users of Hyper-Threaded CPUs will not gain much or very little increase in performance for their $100 investment.

$100 may even be the 2nd highest expense of the PC when used without a discrete GPU.

The purpose of sharing my idea is to plant the seed of idea that will encourage Intel to be fair about their marketing. Since the industry does not have a competitor to challenge Intel's laziness in explaining Hyper-Threading to us.

A thread like this may be shown to executives and key decision makers that consumers are aware of a company's ... laziness of providing education about our purchases.

Good Will and Faith are easily abused by a company until it is challenged by consumers.

This thread shows the inconsistent understanding of yhis expensive yet widely sold feature. Our miseducation is the responsibility of Intel, but very few people care.

[sgloux3470]

Not sure I'm following the argument, or the question.

 

Exactly how is Intel a monopoly?  It is not the only company producing CPUs and the hyperthreading they employ on some of their products is not even patented, it is merely a proprietary implementation of a broadly understood concept.

 

Nothing is stopping other companies from making CPUs and nothing is stopping anyone who does make CPUs from implementing some form of hyperthreading.

 

But even so, arguendo, if someone else were to implement hyperthreading on their product(s), the net effect on Intel's pseudo "monopoly" would be an and/or situation of multiple implementations to program for (thereby driving up the price of software development)  or direct competition of like-enough implementations, leading to some sort of price decrease for hyperthreaded CPUs, which then might have the net effect of making software developers more apt to take advantage of whatever benefits the technology offers.  Which then might increase demand for both products - thus leading to prices not much different than what we have now.

 

Do not confuse a market niche for a monopoly.

 

His discussion is revolving around the idea that because AMD is not competitive people are willing to spend a premium price on Intel CPU's, even if the i7 offers inconsistent performance gains over the much cheaper i5.  

 

If AMD or someone else were more competitive, would people tolerate intel's price structure?

 

I think the answer is a definite no.  People will go spend $400+ on an i7 because it's the "best", regardless of whether or not they understand the difference or if hyperthreading benefits them at all.  They'll certainly talk up how great hyper threading is on the forums, but mostly they're just happy to have a super high end, powerful CPU.  As we saw with Piledriver, when AMD did offer competitive performance in multi-threaded applications without the i7 premium it certainly enticed a lot of people to get them.  

 

No one would spend the absurd price Intel's monopoly attributes to i7's and up if they had cheaper, "close enough" options.  But AMD hasn't been competitive enough in terms of performance. (Although I would argue offering 60% of the performance for 30% the price is a pretty good deal.)  And no one else is going to step into the ring, because Intel has control over the x86 architecture and won't give it to anyone who may want to compete with them.

[i_build_nanosuits]

His discussion is revolving around the idea that because AMD is not competitive people are willing to spend a premium price on Intel CPU's, even if the i7 offers inconsistent performance gains over the much cheaper i5.  

 

If AMD or someone else were more competitive, would people tolerate intel's price structure?

 

I think the answer is a definite no.  People will go spend $400+ on an i7 because it's the "best", regardless of whether or not they understand the difference or if hyperthreading benefits them at all.  They'll certainly talk up how great hyper threading is on the forums, but mostly they're just happy to have a super high end, powerful CPU.  As we saw with Piledriver, when AMD did offer competitive performance in multi-threaded applications without the i7 premium it certainly enticed a lot of people to get them.  

 

No one would spend the absurd price Intel's monopoly attributes to i7's and up if they had cheaper, "close enough" options.  But AMD hasn't been competitive enough in terms of performance. (Although I would argue offering 60% of the performance for 30% the price is a pretty good deal.)  And no one else is going to step into the ring, because Intel has control over the x86 architecture and won't give it to anyone who may want to compete with them.

Hey buddy!! the core i7-4790K is a 4.0ghz CPU, 8 threads...4.4ghz turbo, massive performer in just about anything, run's cool..consume less than 100W under full load and it retail for 317$ right now...279$ at micro-center...wtf?!

i paid 339$ for a core 2 quad Q6600 back in 2007...that would translate into over 400$ in today's money...the i7 is cheap for what you get you have no idea what you are talking about.

AMD CPU's are 100$ because they are trash compaired to intel...and 300$ for a very awesome CPU is an absolutely fine price to me!

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i74790k

dude, you just bought a freaking GTX 980!! You paid how much for this?! 640$ + shipping ?!...for a card that will be outdated in a year time...you are okay with spending that much money on a gpu but the cpu...NO...100$ for a CPU is plenty...makes sense...you should be aware that a good cpu like that would last you many years and be relevant to gaming FOR A WHILE...where as the top-end GPU's still age very badly and get slightly outdated after a year and mostly irrelevant after only 2 years!

`You keep spitting non-sense on this forum day after day

this time you outdid yourself, congrats

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Also, where do you see 60% of the performance for 30% of the price here? you would have to explain this to me one day:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($317.75 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $397.74

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-15 20:44 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($158.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($134.97 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $293.92

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-15 20:45 EST-0500

This to me looks closer to 60% of the price for 30% the performance then the other way around mate. :huh:

Edited January 16, 2015 by i_build_nanosuits

[sgloux3470]

Hey buddy!! the core i7-4790K is a 4ghz CPU, 8 threads...massive performer in just about anything and it retail for 317$ right now...279$ at micro-center...wtf?!

i paid 329$ for a core 2 quad Q6600 back in 2007...that would translate into over 400$ in today's money...the i7 is cheap for what you get you have no idea what you are talking about.

AMD CPU's are 100$ because they are trash compaired to intel...and 300$ for a very awesome CPU is an absolutely fine price to me!

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i74790k

dude, you bought a GTX 980!! you paid how much for this?! 640$ + shipping ?!...for a card that will be outdated in a year time...you are okay with spending that much money on a gpu but the cpu..NO..100$ for a CPU is plenty..makes sense...you should be aware that a good cpu like that will last you many years and be relevant to gaming FOR A WHILE...where as the top-end GPU's still age very badly and get slightly outdated after a year and completely irrelevant after 2 years!

 

 

No need to get so defensive, babe.

 

I'm not averse to spending money on components, and hell with the money I've put into my CPU just so I could overclock it I could have replaced it entirely.  But in so far as my primary usage of my PC goes (High end gaming) I certainly care a lot more about having a top of the line video card than top of the line CPU.  (And for a long time, I did still care about price/performance even for GPU's.  Hence why I went with crossfired 270X's last year.)  CPU is largely like RAM, and if I didn't have as much fun overclocking it as I do I'd probably have changed it out for something boring like a low end i5 that just worked okay and not touched it for another 3-4 years.

[i_build_nanosuits]

No need to get so defensive, babe.

 

I'm not averse to spending money on components, and hell with the money I've put into my CPU just so I could overclock it I could have replaced it entirely.  But in so far as my primary usage of my PC goes (High end gaming) I certainly care a lot more about having a top of the line video card than top of the line CPU.  (And for a long time, I did still care about price/performance even for GPU's.  Hence why I went with crossfired 270X's last year.)  CPU is largely like RAM, and if I didn't have as much fun overclocking it as I do I'd probably have changed it out for something boring like a low end i5 that just worked okay and not touched it for another 3-4 years.

if you see it that way it's perfectly fine...but stop the bullshit with the i7 is way overpriced...it always has been 300$ for those top of the line gaming CPU's and even back in the days when AMD was competitive it was the same.. i still have the receipt for the Q6600 if you don't believe me i'll show it to you...and back then AMD had competitive alternatives that where like 285$ as well.

 

And also your propaganda about the 60% the performance for 30% of the price is what fired me up because you know darn well that it's not the case AT ALL once you factor everything in (extra power consumption, expensive motherboard, time spent tweaking settings uselessly...etc.) it becomes more around 70% of the price for 59% the performance when it comes to gaming.