Unlock Hyperthreading on i5 ?

[tt2ent]

Ok so its the same chip/die. i5 750 and the i7 8xx. Intel even says HT is DISABLED.
So if its disabled and its on the cpu, wouldnt it be possible to unlock it somehow ? Maybe something like the AMD cpu (555) ? The dual core that can be unlocked to quad?
Is it a matter of no one has "hacked" it ?
Please enlighten me someone !

 

[mx344]

I doubt that this is possible seeing that the HT creates virtual cores which is software based. Unlike the amd cores which are physical cores.

 

[tt2ent]

But they say its disabled! Something has to be on at some point to be disabled right ? you know what i'm sayin ?

 

[mx344]

Yah, i gotcha, i just don't think that there is any option that can change this.

 

[Drenlin]

I doubt Intel would design a chipset that's capable of this. AMD is just cool like that, but Intel...nah.

I could see NVidia doing it just to spite them though.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Hmm... i5 does have hyper-threading, it shouldn't be disabled by default or anything like that and you certainly shouldn't need hacks of any kind to enable it.

EDIT: Never mind, actually, I just checked; only the dual-core 6xx i5s have HT for 4 threads (2 physical cores), the 7xx have just 4 physical cores without HT. And I don't think there's a way to enable it, unfortunately.

I doubt that this is possible seeing that the HT creates virtual cores which is software based.

Not quite, it's not software-based at all... it's simply allowing two threads to use one processor core, so the other thread can utilise resources the other one isn't using for reason or another (which happens quite a lot, hence iX CPUs being monsters in multi-threaded apps).

 

[87dtna]

There's no way to enable it.


Hyper threading is OK, it doesn't do a TON but it does help significantly. I did some testing a month or so ago when I had an I7 860. By turning off cores and/or hyper thread I was able to simulate every chip available.

Turning off two cores but leaving HT on simulates an I5 6xx series (although I still have 8mb L3 cache), however, I shut off 1 core and hyper threading so I only had 3 physical cores. In every multi threaded benchmark I tried, 3 core/3 threads beat 2 cores/4threads. It wasn't by a ton though, 2 cores/4 threads is ALMOST like having 3 physical cores. So thats a nice improvement over not having HT.

 

[bomberboysk]

There's no way to enable it.


Hyper threading is OK, it doesn't do a TON but it does help significantly. I did some testing a month or so ago when I had an I7 860. By turning off cores and/or hyper thread I was able to simulate every chip available.

Turning off two cores but leaving HT on simulates an I5 6xx series (although I still have 8mb L3 cache), however, I shut off 1 core and hyper threading so I only had 3 physical cores. In every multi threaded benchmark I tried, 3 core/3 threads beat 2 cores/4threads. It wasn't by a ton though, 2 cores/4 threads is ALMOST like having 3 physical cores. So thats a nice improvement over not having HT.

2 cores 4 threads, 3 cores 6 threads, 4 cores 8 threads however has a pretty noticeable gain over one thread/core. Dont believe me? Take a run with it in wprime with 4 threads and then with 8 on an ht compatible processor

 

[Jamin43]

Tomshardware says you only get a 6% bump in performance with HT

But I found these Bios menus for your MOBO online. If somebody more knowledgable sees an area you can activate it - maybe these pics will help.

Good luck

 

[mx344]

Not quite, it's not software-based at all... it's simply allowing two threads to use one processor core, so the other thread can utilise resources the other one isn't using for reason or another (which happens quite a lot, hence iX CPUs being monsters in multi-threaded apps).

How is it not software based? Is there a physical part on the chip that allows it to run 2 threads on one core, from my understanding there is no physical part that does this. Someone explain.

 

[87dtna]

2 cores 4 threads, 3 cores 6 threads, 4 cores 8 threads however has a pretty noticeable gain over one thread/core. Dont believe me? Take a run with it in wprime with 4 threads and then with 8 on an ht compatible processor

Thats what I used for the test! I said it wasn't a huge gain, but it was significant. Significant=noticeable

Wprime benches with I7 860 at 4.3ghz-

2 cores/2 threads-

32m-14.75
1024-472

2 cores/4 threads-

32m-11.294
1024m-360

3 cores/3 threads-

32m-9.91
1024- 318

4 cores/4 threads-

32m-7.4
1024- 237

4 cores/8 threads-

32m- 5.975
1024m-180

So, as you can see and like I said, significant difference from non-HT to HT, but even 3 physical cores whips 2 cores with 2 extra virtual cores let alone a true quad.


Also, although the percentage is still the same, 24 % increase, there seems to be a much better difference with HT on a dual core than HT with a quad. In the 1024m test, HT shaved 122 seconds off the time! With HT on the quad, it only helped 57 seconds. Now like I said the percentage of gain is the same, but the affects are much better felt from HT with a dual core. This is what helped me go with the I3, know that it would still be a plenty strong CPU for what I needed.

 

[Pikachuwee]

You cant just unlock HT.

If you could, I'm sure someone would've done it by now.

 

[87dtna]

Hyper thread is both hardware and software based. But, something hardware has to tell the software to enable hyper threading, and there's nothing to do that.

 

[bomberboysk]

Thats what I used for the test! I said it wasn't a huge gain, but it was significant. Significant=noticeable

Wprime benches with I7 860 at 4.3ghz-

2 cores/2 threads-

32m-14.75
1024-472

2 cores/4 threads-

32m-11.294
1024m-360

3 cores/3 threads-

32m-9.91
1024- 318

4 cores/4 threads-

32m-7.4
1024- 237

4 cores/8 threads-

32m- 5.975
1024m-180

So, as you can see and like I said, significant difference from non-HT to HT, but even 3 physical cores whips 2 cores with 2 extra virtual cores let alone a true quad.


Also, although the percentage is still the same, 24 % increase, there seems to be a much better difference with HT on a dual core than HT with a quad. In the 1024m test, HT shaved 122 seconds off the time! With HT on the quad, it only helped 57 seconds. Now like I said the percentage of gain is the same, but the affects are much better felt from HT with a dual core. This is what helped me go with the I3, know that it would still be a plenty strong CPU for what I needed.

Reason the gains arent "as much", as 24% of 2XX is less than 24% of 4XX. And heck, 24% for basically a "virtual" core, its definitely a technology that works. Plus honestly, 24% is almost the equivalent of having a 5 core non H/T cpu. I'd love to see amd throw multiple threads on their cpu's, its a pretty easy way to increase multitasking.

 

[tt2ent]

You cant just unlock HT.

If you could, I'm sure someone would've done it by now.

That's not a verygood point of view.. Just not american = ).

Ok, so we concluded its hw and sw... A Lynfield is a Lynfield the difference in them is only software. Frequency for example. We overide the stock frequency. I believe it would be possible to "overide/enable" HT. The problem is emulating how intel does this

 

[87dtna]

Reason the gains arent "as much", as 24% of 2XX is less than 24% of 4XX. And heck, 24% for basically a "virtual" core, its definitely a technology that works. Plus honestly, 24% is almost the equivalent of having a 5 core non H/T cpu. I'd love to see amd throw multiple threads on their cpu's, its a pretty easy way to increase multitasking.

Pretty sure I covered that when I said ''although the percentage of gain is the same'', and went on to explain Point is, the affects of HT are felt more on a dual than a quad. It's still 122 seconds less VS 57 seconds less.


Yes, roughly a pentacore with HT on a quad. I believe this still falls into my original description of HT as ''signicant'' but not a ''ton'' of difference

 

[ScottALot]

It's disabled because you're in the motherboard's BIOS, not the [non-existent] CPU BIOS. The motherboard understands that the CPU is an i5 incapable of HT, so it disables the HT. If you were to put an i7 or i3 in there, HT would enable, or at least the BIOS would understand that you can now enable it because there is an HT capable chip in the socket.

 

[Pikachuwee]

That's not a verygood point of view.. Just not american = ).

Ok, so we concluded its hw and sw... A Lynfield is a Lynfield the difference in them is only software. Frequency for example. We overide the stock frequency. I believe it would be possible to "overide/enable" HT. The problem is emulating how intel does this

Siiiigh.

You can't emulate HT. -3-

 

[tt2ent]

Siiiigh.

You can't emulate HT. -3-

emulate the way Intel enables HT. Not emulating HT.

Also, imagine a world where people kept their CPU @ the frequency they bought it because they asumed that there was just no way you could change it. I mean, if it was possible Intel or AMD would have given it to you from the jump right ?
Not a world i'd wanna live in.
Just because nobody has done something yet doesn't mean it can't be done.
Should people stop trying to hack the PS3 ? no sir they should not

 

[tt2ent]

Im pretty sure GOD (lol) created all Lynfields the equally. The journey they took after creation (Intel software) is what makes them 2.xxGHz or 2.yyGhz or 2.xxGHz w\HT or 2.yyGHz w\HT.
Understand what I are saying ?
You would have to KNOW the exact process to be able to say yes it can or can't. ANYTHING else is just a guess.