1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:07,600
simultaneous multi-threading a feature that Intel calls hyperthreading has

2
00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:11,880
become a real mainstate on consumer CPUs hyper threading allows a single CPU core

3
00:00:09,639 --> 00:00:16,359
to process two threads at one time and while this isn't quite as powerful as

4
00:00:14,280 --> 00:00:20,000
just having two physical cores certainly improves performance in many

5
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:24,519
applications becoming important enough since it was originally introduced in

6
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:30,000
2002 to spread to a huge number of chips as far down as the lower-end core I3

7
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:34,760
series but get this Intel is planning to ditch hyperthreading after 22 years with

8
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:38,719
the launch of its lunar Lake and aerol Lake processors later this year why

9
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:43,879
would they get rid of what seems like such a useful feature I mean do they not

10
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:48,199
want to beat AMD a big part of this is the hybrid chip design that Intel

11
00:00:46,039 --> 00:00:52,640
started rolling out with its aler L CPUs in 2021 instead of having all the cores

12
00:00:50,480 --> 00:00:58,199
be basically identical team blue instead gave us P or performance cores and e or

13
00:00:56,280 --> 00:01:01,519
efficiency cores especially important for laptops where battery life is a

14
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:06,080
Paramount concern and you don't want to waste energy putting processes through

15
00:01:03,719 --> 00:01:09,600
more power hungry cores if you just don't need the extra performance

16
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:14,240
according to Intel current peores give you about 30% more average throughput

17
00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:18,400
when hyperthreading is enabled but at the cost of a 20% increase in power

18
00:01:16,759 --> 00:01:22,439
consumption and even if you're not running off a battery this can matter a

19
00:01:20,320 --> 00:01:25,759
great deal in places like data centers where you're trying to move as many

20
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:30,880
threads as possible through your chips meaning power consumption becomes an

21
00:01:27,320 --> 00:01:33,040
important concern and a big cost so how

22
00:01:30,880 --> 00:01:37,040
is Intel trying to solve this power problem without losing that magic

23
00:01:35,439 --> 00:01:40,600
hyperthreading performance we'll give you the answer right after we thank

24
00:01:38,439 --> 00:01:44,280
delete me online privacy isn't just personal it's a family matter because of

25
00:01:42,320 --> 00:01:48,399
that delete me is now offering seamless protection for your entire family with

26
00:01:46,159 --> 00:01:51,960
their family plans with individual data sheets tailored to each member their

27
00:01:50,439 --> 00:01:56,399
privacy first design ensures personalized removal of personal

28
00:01:53,520 --> 00:02:01,200
information from online databases from kids to adults everyone stays safe from

29
00:01:58,360 --> 00:02:04,600
unwanted exposure and scams simplified management means peace of mind for all

30
00:02:03,119 --> 00:02:09,200
so checko delete me at the link below and Safeguard your family's digital

31
00:02:06,439 --> 00:02:13,879
world today although ecores obviously don't have the same processing muscle as

32
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:18,360
peores Intel says it's much more efficient to run extra threads on those

33
00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:23,000
ecores instead of using hyperthreading on peores with the way the operating

34
00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:28,480
system schedules threads it doesn't invoke hyperthreading until all cores

35
00:02:25,920 --> 00:02:32,959
both P and D have been populated in order to maximize power efficiency Intel

36
00:02:30,920 --> 00:02:38,800
says that by foregoing hyperthreading and instead just having more ecores you

37
00:02:35,239 --> 00:02:41,480
get a 15% increase in IPC that's

38
00:02:38,800 --> 00:02:47,720
instructions per clock per unit of power and a 10% IPC increase per unit of die

39
00:02:45,159 --> 00:02:52,920
area hyperring is still better in terms of IPC per die area when you don't have

40
00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:57,239
those additional ecores but seeing as Intel seems committed to their hybrid

41
00:02:55,159 --> 00:03:02,480
chip design which also allows them to pack more cores onto their CPUs than in

42
00:02:59,920 --> 00:03:05,720
the past team blue seems confident that users won't particularly Miss

43
00:03:03,959 --> 00:03:10,440
hyperthreading remember that the feature was originally designed for a CPU that

44
00:03:07,959 --> 00:03:14,040
had just one core Intel's benchmarks back this idea up with lunar Lake

45
00:03:12,519 --> 00:03:17,959
beating the previous gen meteor Lake chips fairly comfortably despite

46
00:03:16,159 --> 00:03:21,040
consuming a similar amount of power of course we'll have to wait and see what

47
00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:24,799
independent benchmarks say once the chips actually hit the market but the

48
00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:29,080
focus on efficiency isn't surprising considering Intel is trying to stay

49
00:03:26,879 --> 00:03:33,080
ahead of the arm-based offerings from both apple and and Qualcomm which are

50
00:03:31,159 --> 00:03:37,319
touting power efficiency as a major selling point but if you really do end

51
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:41,879
up missing hyperthreading it could be a great time to invest in a really high

52
00:03:39,159 --> 00:03:46,360
performance sewing machine AO I'm sorry I'm sorry everyone thanks

53
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:52,040
for watching guys if you like this video check out this video on another type of

54
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:53,760
CPU Intel killed called itanium comment

55
00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:57,239
with video suggestions and don't forget to subscribe and follow