hyperthreading- old technology in CPU terms

[Dan_D]

After 6.8 years on these forums, I guess you have shined your troll style to maximum bling.

And say what again?

Look at the price!
Yeah, it's expensive. Don't buy it.

And this keeps up with and beats it in some cases for far less of a price:
And you say Intel doesnt price gouge?
So what?

Wow, just wow. Look free markets are always buyer beware. If you don't know that, its your problem. Intel's Core i7 990X offers performance that no other desktop CPU on the market can touch. However, as it was in the early days of dual core and quad core CPUs, hex core CPUs aren't leveraged by every application. There are only a handful of them which a desktop user will see any benefit to spending that kind of money on a processor. If you are one of them, you probably know that and buy according to your wants and needs. No, they aren't for everyone and they aren't for the mainstream. However, to imply there is no value in them at all is simply untrue.

And the fact that you can't afford one or do not need or want one has no bearing on the value of the item. So you won't buy it, so what? I don't drive a Corvette Z06. I can afford one, but I don't feel like spending the money on one. Does that mean I should nerd rage about them existing, slam GM for creating them and bitch that the speed limit is only 60MPH and that a Honda Civic can do that easily? Again it's not for everyone. The people that want or need the performance know who they are and understand and accept the price premium or as they say, "the price of admission."

And again on the cost of the CPU, Intel has to bin very high end CPUs which feature unlocked multipliers, and let's not forget that the Core i7 990X has two more cores than the 2600K. It also features 33% more memory bandwidth, and a more complex QPI interconnect. It is also sold and marketed to owners of a more expensive platform. X58 costs more than P67/H67/Z68 boards do. Simple as that.

 

[Proxy]

One thing I like about HT with gaming is how smooth ALT+TAB is. Also, with HT it allows me to run one or more VM's and play games on my host without a performance hit. I personally don't think HT is old, just that it was a head of it's time in the P4 days.

 

[Dan_D]

One thing I like about HT with gaming is how smooth ALT+TAB is. Also, with HT it allows me to run one or more VM's and play games on my host without a performance hit. I personally don't think HT is old, just that it was a head of it's time in the P4 days.

Hyperthreading is also improved in the newer CPUs. So even if it is an old idea, it's still current.

 

[tangoseal]

Wow, just wow. Look free markets are always buyer beware. If you don't know that, its your problem. Intel's Core i7 990X offers performance that no other desktop CPU on the market can touch. However, as it was in the early days of dual core and quad core CPUs, hex core CPUs aren't leveraged by every application. There are only a handful of them which a desktop user will see any benefit to spending that kind of money on a processor. If you are one of them, you probably know that and buy according to your wants and needs. No, they aren't for everyone and they aren't for the mainstream. However, to imply there is no value in them at all is simply untrue.

And the fact that you can't afford one or do not need or want one has no bearing on the value of the item. So you won't buy it, so what? I don't drive a Corvette Z06. I can afford one, but I don't feel like spending the money on one. Does that mean I should nerd rage about them existing, slam GM for creating them and bitch that the speed limit is only 60MPH and that a Honda Civic can do that easily? Again it's not for everyone. The people that want or need the performance know who they are and understand and accept the price premium or as they say, "the price of admission."

And again on the cost of the CPU, Intel has to bin very high end CPUs which feature unlocked multipliers, and let's not forget that the Core i7 990X has two more cores than the 2600K. It also features 33% more memory bandwidth, and a more complex QPI interconnect. It is also sold and marketed to owners of a more expensive platform. X58 costs more than P67/H67/Z68 boards do. Simple as that.

Im sure glad you can afford a Z06. I like the rear mounted transmission. Makes for great balance. Imagine if they had a Hyperthreaded ZO6?? It could do two drag races at once.

 

[Dan_D]

Im sure glad you can afford a Z06. Is that with low monthly payments or straight out cash?

It doesn't matter. I could be driving one easily if I wanted to. It's not relevant beyond the analogy in the thread. Though I could just as easily say, I can't afford to drive a new Ferrari. So because I can't, should I hate them? I didn't use that analogy because the poster I was responding to said that they could easily afford a top end Core i7 if they wanted one, but was bitching about price gouging or some such nonsense.

 

[450]

Im sure glad you can afford a Z06. I like the rear mounted transmission. Makes for great balance. Imagine if they had a Hyperthreaded ZO6?? It could do two drag races at once.

Wow. Dan D caught your ninja edit!

 

[rjolin01]

In my opinion, price gouging only exsist when there are people who are willing to pay the crazy amount. Then again if someone is willing to give me more money even tho there's a cheaper alternative I will gladly take their money. This is why I believe in researching products. To find the least expensive and most convient way that meets my needs.

 

[TehQuick]

In my opinion, price gouging only exsist when there are people who are willing to pay the crazy amount. Then again if someone is willing to give me more money even tho there's a cheaper alternative I will gladly take their money. This is why I believe in researching products. To find the least expensive and most convient way that meets my needs.

price gouging exists when there's no competition which forces people to buy stuff at exorbitant prices

 

[tangoseal]

Wow. Dan D caught your ninja edit!

Well it was a little harsh and not anyones business so I changed it to something cooler.

But being that Z06 is nice car I had to comment on that to take it off topic.

 

[CleanSlate]

I'm glad to see that my thread has garnered as much attention as it has.

I think this thread brings up some serious questions and I hope the discussions continue because I have learned some things from this thread just like I do from most threads that bring up controversial subjects here.

Some people have made some interesting points about the value of intel cpus in general and I may have made the mistake of assuming that one of the only important features in the i7's vs the i5's is the HT support. However, there are a few more features that need to be considered such as the newer features included like the triple channel ram and perhaps a few other things.

However, these newer features may not actually be worth the added cost for most users, either.

To get a high end i7 vs a high end x6 is still about a 200 dollar difference when you compare motherboards and probably other costs as well. If you encode video all day long or do something similar with other types of media then perhaps the difference in price is nothing to you.

However, when it comes to the average user, even here at the [H], getting an i7 is superfluous and the extra cost would most definitely not cover the benefits. When it comes to gaming from everything I have seen with the i7's, for all their glitz and glamor (and extra price tag), they fail to meet the added fps/horse power needs that that sort of price tag increase creates.

Simple truth.

Side note: If you are like tangoseal for instance with 3x6970's and probably running triple monitor gaming 24/7 then it would be worth almost any extra investment for any little extra horse power you can get. And of course the top of the line is the i7 these days. Actually, I'm sort of surprised you aren't running an extreme i7 tangoseal. Why did you choose the 2600k over any of the extreme i7s?

 

[Uberbob102000]

I'm glad to see that my thread has garnered as much attention as it has.

I think this thread brings up some serious questions and I hope the discussions continue because I have learned some things from this thread just like I do from most threads that bring up controversial subjects here.

Some people have made some interesting points about the value of intel cpus in general and I may have made the mistake of assuming that one of the only important features in the i7's vs the i5's is the HT support. However, there are a few more features that need to be considered such as the newer features included like the triple channel ram and perhaps a few other things.

However, these newer features may not actually be worth the added cost for most users, either.

To get a high end i7 vs a high end x6 is still about a 200 dollar difference when you compare motherboards and probably other costs as well. If you encode video all day long or do something similar with other types of media then perhaps the difference in price is nothing to you.

However, when it comes to the average user, even here at the [H], getting an i7 is superfluous and the extra cost would most definitely not cover the benefits. When it comes to gaming from everything I have seen with the i7's, for all their glitz and glamor (and extra price tag), they fail to meet the added fps/horse power needs that that sort of price tag increase creates.

Simple truth.

Side note: If you are like tangoseal for instance with 3x6970's and probably running triple monitor gaming 24/7 then it would be worth almost any extra investment for any little extra horse power you can get. And of course the top of the line is the i7 these days. Actually, I'm sort of surprised you aren't running an extreme i7 tangoseal. Why did you choose the 2600k over any of the extreme i7s?

Well the thing is, you get so much extra power by going with the Core i7s, they overclock like beasts and finally, the biggest thing for me, is that the mobos are SLi as well as CrossfireX compatible which allows me to choose whichever GPUs work best performance wise within my budget.

I'm not trying to speak for tangoseal or anything but I know I chose this over a Core i7 Extreme is because my apps don't benefit at all from a hexcore with 12 threads vs a quad core with 8 threads for the most part.

 

[Sojuuk]

old = bad
new = good

everyone knows this right guys?

personally I love hyperthreading

 

[GushpinBob]

Unlocked multipliers are a pretty old concept too (15+ years?), but you'll have to shell out an extra $1000 if you want that feature on your latest processor.

 

[RamonGTP]

Unlocked multipliers are a pretty old concept too (15+ years?), but you'll have to shell out an extra $1000 if you want that feature on your latest processor.

 

[Uberbob102000]

Unlocked multipliers are a pretty old concept too (15+ years?), but you'll have to shell out an extra $1000 if you want that feature on your latest processor.

You, sir, are incorrect. 2 of my procs have unlocked multipliers and I definitely paid less than 300 for my 2600k and my 1100T BE.

 

[pxc]

Unlocked multipliers are a pretty old concept too (15+ years?), but you'll have to shell out an extra $1000 if you want that feature on your latest processor.

lol, meet unlocked i7 2600K, around $300 and unlocked i5 2500K, around $200. Thank you for playing. The i7 990x is based on Intel's older core, a generation before Sandy Bridge. It's made for a high end niche, which IMO is pretty pointless even for enthusiasts. Someone with the need for such a processor should consider it.

The one thing that gets me is the selective memory. It's like some people don't remember AMD's $600, $800 or $1000 processors back in the Athlon 64 and X2 days while it enjoyed the performance lead.

 

[Uberbob102000]

lol, meet unlocked i7 2600K, around $300 and unlocked i5 2500K, around $200. Thank you for playing. The i7 990x is based on Intel's older core, a generation before Sandy Bridge. It's made for a high end niche, which IMO is pretty pointless even for enthusiasts. Someone with the need for such a processor should consider it.

The one thing that gets me is the selective memory. It's like some people don't remember AMD's $600, $800 or $1000 processors back in the Athlon 64 and X2 days while it enjoyed the performance lead.

Yea, same here. I remember my wallet crying for some time after I picked up an FX-60 when that beast came out.

 

[Pyroja]

lol, meet unlocked i7 2600K, around $300 and unlocked i5 2500K, around $200. Thank you for playing. The i7 990x is based on Intel's older core, a generation before Sandy Bridge. It's made for a high end niche, which IMO is pretty pointless even for enthusiasts. Someone with the need for such a processor should consider it.

The one thing that gets me is the selective memory. It's like some people don't remember AMD's $600, $800 or $1000 processors back in the Athlon 64 and X2 days while it enjoyed the performance lead.

Truth. I remember when I first got the x2 3800+ and I OC'd it to 2.4ghz and beyond. I remember thinking it was so cool that I was getting $1000 performance with $300 of CPU.

 

[Furystrike]

Intel 2500K. $179 @ microcenter. AMAZING performance for the price.

I would call the OP a moron, but that would be infraction worthy.

 

[Dan_D]

Very true. At that price its one of the best bang for your buck processors available today.

 

[tangoseal]

Well the thing is, you get so much extra power by going with the Core i7s, they overclock like beasts and finally, the biggest thing for me, is that the mobos are SLi as well as CrossfireX compatible which allows me to choose whichever GPUs work best performance wise within my budget.

I'm not trying to speak for tangoseal or anything but I know I chose this over a Core i7 Extreme is because my apps don't benefit at all from a hexcore with 12 threads vs a quad core with 8 threads for the most part.

Bingo! Same reasoning here. However apps are starting to come out on a regular basis that support multicore usage.

So as the applications that support it grows I will justify the need for more physical cores. In all honesty the quad 2600K is plenty fast, in some cases can do the same or a little more than the 980x/990x. Also the premium of going with an X58 setup was not worth to me with so many new tech releases around the near corner.

Im hyped but very cautious about the 8 core bulldozer, and very excited about socket 2011 and the new X chipset that Intel will release. I also feel that my 2600K with Max IV will have great resale value if I choose to go a tier higher.

 

[Lord Kanti]

I have an i7 920 that I got for about $185 back in 2009 and I love it. There are plenty of apps out there that let you monitor your hardware and I have seen all 8 threads active on a daily basis. I don't get why people say "Oh, you don't need 12GB of RAM, you don't need HT, etc. for day to day use..." If you got the cash and you know your computer habits, go for the most bang for the buck. I've seen Firefox use 6GB of RAM, that and running a few games and apps easily puts me at 10-11GB utilized. Anyways, HT makes a difference; sure most programs are single threaded, but if you got 20 programs running at the same time, why settle for 4 threads?

 

[chrispycrunch]

All technology buys should be made when you need them. Buy the most memory or cpu power or HT as you need it, and balance it against a budget. Trying to feel ripped off is besides the point: if AMD did not have intel, amd would maximize profit...if AMD were not around then intel would not have created an i5-2500k and would only sell the most profitable cpu's.

Aside: My trusty p4 with HT is still working like a champ, for general surfing. Boots up faster (win xp) than my e6750 (win7) Load anything past photoshop 1 or run flash and she will not be up to part.

 

[serpretetsky]

However, when it comes to the average user, even here at the [H], getting an i7 is superfluous and the extra cost would most definitely not cover the benefits. When it comes to gaming from everything I have seen with the i7's, for all their glitz and glamor (and extra price tag), they fail to meet the added fps/horse power needs that that sort of price tag increase creates.

Simple truth.

Side note: If you are like tangoseal for instance with 3x6970's and probably running triple monitor gaming 24/7 then it would be worth almost any extra investment for any little extra horse power you can get. And of course the top of the line is the i7 these days. Actually, I'm sort of surprised you aren't running an extreme i7 tangoseal. Why did you choose the 2600k over any of the extreme i7s?

Ok, so i think there are some sort of misunderstandings here. Mostly, I don't understand why are you comparing intel extremem cpus, intel i7 gen2 cpus, and amd 6-core cpus, so let me break down some benchmarks and prices.


Prices:
i7 2600k 300$
i7 980x 1000$
amd 1100t 200$

I think you've already noticed this, all of these processor are in a different price category. What I think you have failed to notice is that all of these cpu's are in different price categories for a reason. They DO NOT compete with eachother.

First, let's observer exhibit A
2600k vs 980x http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287
this is intels 300$ gen2 i7 vs there 1000$ gen1 i7 "extreme" cpu. You will notice that you were indeed, quite correct, that there really is little reason to get the 1000$ i7 cpu. In terms of a gaming machine, the only reason to get the extreme i7 is not for the processor itself, but because the motherboards have more than a single native x16 pci-e bandwidth, which may prove useful for 3-way sli/crossfire and above. If you have only 2 cards or less, the 1000$ i7 has no real added value.

However, what you may also notice is that there are a few very specific applications where the 1000$ i7 extreme is actually beating the $300 i7 2600k. Those few applications are ones that run more threads than the 2600k can handle or require the tripple channel added memory bandwidth. These are also applications which happen to pay big bucks for the hardware because these applications are usually used by proffesional media creators that do this every single day. They need any extra performance in their specific application they can get. Furthermore, any application that requires maxiumum pci-e bandwidth for whatever reason will probably go with the x58 and the 1st gen i7's (like the 6-core extreme)

exhibit B
980x vs 1100t http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=203
2600k vs 1100t http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=203

alright, let's compare amd's 200$ 6-core offering vs intel's 2600k or 6-core extreme processor. There's no competion here. AMD doesn't have a bad offering, in fact, they have a really great value. But it's simply not comparable, in any way, to intel's high end. You want to get something that's actually comparable? ok, try this:

i5 2500k (224$) vs amd 1100t (200$)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203

alright, now you have a case. The i5 2500k does still cost more, and the mobo will probably cost an extra 20$ over the the amd, but at least we're in the same ballpark now. The i5 2500k still spanks the amd in many applications, but there's a few where amd's 6-core powers through. You want to make an argument of intel vs amd offerings? Start with the 2500k and work your way down, because amd currently has nothing against any of the i7's.

edit: you may also make the case that since the higher end i7's do not have direct competition, that they are price gouging, and setting unfair prices. But that is a strange argument and weird reason to create a thread on it. The i7 is not some sort of comodity that intel has a monopoly on. There are, believe it or not, other solutions, such as getting dedicated server and or home supercomputer hardware (tesla's, etc) based on intel, amd, sun, ibm, etc. There is a clear demand for their extreme processors at the current price level they have set. Is it a price that i would ever pay for? No. I have absolutely no need of such hardware at such a price that is absurd to me. Is intel doing something morally wrong? No. I 100% encourage them to set the most profitable price they can for their hardware, such is economics.

edit2: you can make a similar analogy with mclaren f1. The mclaren f1 car is rediculously overpriced. Is there somethign wrong with them setting such a high price? no. You can make the argument that the nissan GTR is a far better value and that therefor nissan is a more morally correct company. But that's not true, Mclaren can set any price they want on their car to make it the most profitable. Nobody actually NEEDS the mclaren f1, and nobody truly NEEDS the extreme i7's.

If instead we were talking about a company that just invented a new vaccine and set the price at some rediculous level, then we would be having a different argument.

 

[schizrade]

Nobody actually NEEDS the mclaren f1, and nobody truly NEEDS the extreme i7's.

Wow, so you speak for the entirety of humanity and their CPU needs and desires?

I know a few people that use Extreme i7's to their limits daily. Although they do not have a degree in internet ranting, so their needs are different from yours I guess.

 

[serpretetsky]

Wow, so you speak for the entirety of humanity and their CPU needs and desires?

I know a few people that use Extreme i7's to their limits daily. Although they do not have a degree in internet ranting, so their needs are different from yours I guess.

I know a few people that use the mclaren f1 to it's limits too, are you implying that in either of these cases they have such strong needs of these products that pricing them above a certain price is morally wrong of the producers?

I guess I'm arguing that your friends dont NEED that processor. And so you have not contradicted me in any way.

I use a lot of my products to their limits too, and i find them quite useful, they make my life easier. It's also not the end of the world if the specific product disappears from my life. There are plenty of other products i could make do with that are not directly competing with the product i was enjoying before.

edit: i suppose we're arguing about the definition of need. I mean specifically that to need something is to mean that if it is taking away, it is arguable that it may be violating a human right. Pricing medicine at rediculously high level for profits begins to create an argument about profits vs right to life. Is it a securable argument? I'm not sure, however, such an argument doesn't even exist when you talk about pricing an i7 970 processor at 2000$ or 200,000$.

 

[schizrade]

I know a few people that use the mclaren f1 to it's limits too, are you implying that in either of these cases they have such strong needs of these products that pricing them above a certain price is morally wrong of the producers?

I guess I'm arguing that your friends dont NEED that processor. And so you have not contradicted me in any way.

I use a lot of my products to their limits too, and i find them quite useful, they make my life easier. It's also not the end of the world if the specific product disappears from my life. There are plenty of other products i could make do with that are not directly competing with the product i was enjoying before.

edit: i suppose we're arguing about the definition of need. I mean specifically that to need something is to mean that if it is taking away, it is arguable that it may be violating a human right. Pricing medicine at rediculously high level for profits begins to create an argument about profits vs right to life. Is it a securable argument? I'm not sure, however, such an argument doesn't even exist when you talk about pricing an i7 970 processor at 2000$ or 200,000$.

Morally wrong?
Human rights?

Are you fully insane?

You don't NEED to post on HardOCP, so get out.

See how that works? LMAO.


If Intel did not exist to make a profit, (like any business or individual) then you would be living in a cave eating ants. Reality check for you: Companies exist to provide a service or product that helps make other people more productive or happy. They make a profit so they can continue to invest and employ more people to make better products. If they start making crap, they lose market share and cease to exist after a time. I know this doesn't fit into the dream worldview where companies invent HIV vaccinations just for the humanity of it, but it is the way it has always worked. Massive amounts of resources go into making things, and people need to buy those resources, whether they be material or mental. Wanna make a new car? You gotta buy the steel and plastics, you just cannot steal them from the steel and plastic guy. Wanna make the fastest processor on a desktop? It takes a lot of people time and lower yields off the wafer to make such a complex device, which make it more scarce than a Core i3, which is less complex. They have a lot of costs to recoup or they go broke, and of they don't pay their engineers or take care of their FAB, then they start to lose profit.

Remove your theory from the glass bell jar of academia and it falls apart. Has the 20th century taught us nothing?

 

[Silentbob343]

Intel 2500K. $179 @ microcenter. AMAZING performance for the price.

I would call the OP a moron, but that would be infraction worthy.

+1, bought one recently and built a new rig. Still need a new case before it takes over the desk, can't wait to use it though as I have a bit of video editing to do.

 

[serpretetsky]

Morally wrong?
Human rights?

Are you fully insane?

You don't NEED to post on HardOCP, so get out.

See how that works? LMAO.


If Intel did not exist to make a profit, (like any business or individual) then you would be living in a cave eating ants. Reality check for you: Companies exist to provide a service or product that helps make other people more productive or happy. They make a profit so they can continue to invest and employ more people to make better products. If they start making crap, they lose market share and cease to exist after a time. I know this doesn't fit into the dream worldview where companies invent HIV vaccinations just for the humanity of it, but it is the way it has always worked. Massive amounts of resources go into making things, and people need to buy those resources, whether they be material or mental. Wanna make a new car? You gotta buy the steel and plastics, you just cannot steal them from the steel and plastic guy. Wanna make the fastest processor on a desktop? It takes a lot of people time and lower yields off the wafer to make such a complex device, which make it more scarce than a Core i3, which is less complex. They have a lot of costs to recoup or they go broke, and of they don't pay their engineers or take care of their FAB, then they start to lose profit.

Remove your theory from the glass bell jar of academia and it falls apart. Has the 20th century taught us nothing?

the tone of you post sounds like you are disagreeing with me. Yet I don't understand what your disagreeing with me about. I completely agree with everything you just said, and i skimmed my posts, including what you quoted and can't really tell what you don't like.
Except i'm not sure how you get from my not needing to post here and me getting out. That one eludes me.

 

[PGHammer]

So, why is it that paying extra for an i7 to get a chip worthy of it is a necessity?

I would have gone i5 had hyperthreading been on any of the chips worth my while. Also, buying an intel motherboard vs buying an amd motherboard is almost a joke when it comes to price and value.

It must be frustrating as a consumer. I know it was for me. Which is why I had to spend my cash else where. Don't get me wrong, I could have afforded a top of the line i7 but why would I encourage such blatant price gouging and Apple-like strategies of raping peoples pocket books just to get old technology? I don't buy Apple products either and it's not a huge secret why. Ethics, mostly.

No, I don't want your patched up yet 10 year old technology for double the price for brand new technology from your competitor and then also to get price gouged again on your peripherals and attachments or even a necessary motherboard that has more than one extra pcie slot and two ram slots.

Am I just annoyed for no reason here or what? In a very strict business/money is king sort of way it makes sense but in a sane/customer satisfaction and customer relations view point it's just blatantly/obviously bad business tactics.

Unlike when HTT originally launched (with Ye Olde Netburst Architecture and the P4 Northwood-A 3.06) there are far more applications that used multiple cores. (When I bought my P4 2.6C in 2005, there were fewer than *ten* Windows applications, and a mere three games, that used multiple cores - physical or virtual. HTT basically became a poor-man's SMP, especially for NT-based operating systems such as Windows 2000 and XP.)

Multitasking has become commonplace enough that, even though multicore-ready applications are still not the default, there are more of them. Running multiple multicore applications has brought back the need for HTT, simply due to a true eight-core desktop CPU being far too spendy. (i7-2600k, Intel's cheapest 4+4 desktop CPU, is generally closer to $250USD, even on sale; eight-core Xeons for workstation use are easily three times that - and that's just for the CPU.) If you actually have a use for all those cores, i7-2600K is a *bargain* compared to even Xeon 4+4, let alone a true eight-core workstation Xeon.

Is even 4+4 the new default? Hardly - I have a difficult time justifying even i5-2400 - a bargain pricewise compared to i7-2600 (non-K), let alone i7-2600K. While it's a relative bargain, it's severe overkill for what I run, even throwing in multitasking and virtualization. While there are a greater percentage of the members of [H] running at least one system with four or more cores, it's still not the largest percentage of even the [H]orde - over half still have their main system with two or fewer cores. With physical multicore being a bargain, the need for HTT atop that is not as high - hence its relative absence from Intel's desktop CPUs in general, and complete absence from i5 and below.

While it would be nice to have (for the same reason that a Lexus LFA or Mercedes AMG would be), it's severe overkill for what I use a desktop PC for (just as the LFA or AMG Mercedes would be overkill for grocery-store runs).

 

[nissanztt90]

With physical multicore being a bargain, the need for HTT atop that is not as high - hence its relative absence from Intel's desktop CPUs in general, and complete absence from i5 and below.

Plenty of Intels desktop cpus have HT, including i3's.

 

[ramicio]

No one is forcing you (OP) to buy something. If you don't like it, don't buy. Don't complain about something you don't own. HT is a trademark. It doesn't mean the architecture for it is the same between the P4 and the new i processors.

 

[PGHammer]

Plenty of Intels desktop cpus have HT, including i3's.

While the i3s do, the i5s (except for certain dual-core i5s, such as the i5-2390S, the only dual-core Sandy Bridge i5) do not. Also, in the case of i5, while they are lacking HTT, some models do support VT-d (i5-2400S, for example). Still, you're right - I should have qualified it (the differential is with LGA1155 (Sandy Bridge); dual-core i3s and the single dual-core i5 supports HTT, while quad-cores that are not i7 do not).

(spits out crow feathers)

 

[danswartz]

On the other side of the sandy bridge fence, pretty much all of the E3 xeons support HT (only exceptions are the 1220 and 1225.)

 

[Outamyhead]

I7's were the same price as what they are asking for i5's right now, I don't regret the move at all, and for old tech, it's plenty fast for me.

 

[PGHammer]

On the other side of the sandy bridge fence, pretty much all of the E3 xeons support HT (only exceptions are the 1220 and 1225.)

That's also the workstation/server side of the fence - there is seldom such a thing as too many cores (physical or virtual) there. SMP (the direct ancestor of both HTT and multicore) began there, too. On that side of the fence, it's the 1220 and 1225 that are niche processors, as opposed to the LGA (desktop) side, LGAs 1155/1156, 1366, even 775 all, depending on their targeting, support multicore, HTT, or both. (Consider that, other than in the refurm/used CPU market, there are *zero* single-core CPUs for any of the four desktop/notebook LGAs. Single-core has been officially banished to non-x86 (such as Atom).