Which CPU would be faster, a 4 core w/ HT or 6 core w/o? Equal

>>61436088
Depends on the program, most programs aren't designed to use more than 4 cores, so in that case then HT is better, otherwise 6 core is better.

>>61436183
That's not how it works. Programs cannot distinguish between physical and logical cores, you don't have to optimize for 8/8 if say it already supports 4/8.

>>61436088
Depends on the workload(s). Some workloads can benefit greatly from hyperthreading, others get 0 scaling or even performance regressions.

From a purely MT standpoint, the 6c nonHT would win in almost all cases as it has more resources available than the 4c8t, as it has 2 more real cores.

>>61436088
With HT
25% more performance
With SMT
30% more performance
With 2 extra cores
50% more performance

>>61436088

>Equal clocks, same architecture.

literally no fucking CPU series in history has come out with those configurations

every step has been x2

and only AYYMD came out with fucking odd numbered CPUs which came in either 3 or 6 cores

>>61438561
Next gen i5s and i7s are 6 core.

>>61438596

but is there a 4 core version as well?

>>61438561
Ryzen literally has four core and six core variants you fucking nigger.

>>61438655

so the 6 core version is not HT?

File: fb2.png (141KB, 275x274px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 275x274px

>>61438561
>literally no fucking CPU series in history has come out with those configurations
What did it mean by this?