# 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

87dtna said:


> 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

hackapelite said:


> 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

bomberboysk said:


> 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

87dtna said:


> 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

Pikachuwee said:


> 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

bomberboysk said:


> 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

tt2ent said:


> 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

Pikachuwee said:


> 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.


----------



## Matthew1990

Get a job at Intel, steal the "plans", unlock HT on your i5, and be happy. Relish 2% faster CPU. 


Simple version. Got to your BIOS OC it 50MHz more, enjoy more performance increase than HT.


----------



## 87dtna

Matthew1990 said:


> Get a job at Intel, steal the "plans", unlock HT on your i5, and be happy. Relish 2% faster CPU.
> 
> 
> Simple version. Got to your BIOS OC it 50MHz more, enjoy more performance increase than HT.



Did you completely miss my huge post with benchmark results back there?  HT adds 24% increase.  The I5 would need to be at probably 3.4-3.6ghz to match the multithreaded performance of an I7 860 at stock 2.8ghz.


----------



## Matthew1990

87dtna said:


> Did you completely miss my huge post with benchmark results back there?  HT adds 24% increase.  The I5 would need to be at probably 3.4-3.6ghz to match the multithreaded performance of an I7 860 at stock 2.8ghz.



Right ok, but I am 10000% sure that it is impossible to enable it.


----------



## 87dtna

I agree with that, just pointing out HT does make a significant difference.  The I5 750 is a very powerful CPU.  I had one at 4.0ghz as a 24/7 overclock and it was a beast, totally overkill for me.


----------



## tt2ent

Its not really that I need HT its the idea of getting more out of what you already got. Its about stickn it to the man!... Or somethin like that lol
I wishd I'd known about the xeon x3440 cpu before I built my system a few weeks ago. Its like $220 and its a lynfield w/HT @ a stock speed around 2.33ghz (can't remember exactly) so that's priced in between the i5 and i7 range. It can be oc'd like any other Lynfield. O well...


----------



## 87dtna

It's 2.53ghz, and it's $240.  So it's priced right in between the I5 and I7.  So if you are willing to pay $240, it's not that much more for the I7.

If you have a microcenter near you I believe the I7 860 is $230 all the time there.  If you don't have one near you, you could find a trusted friend that is near one and get you an I7 860 for $240-250 shipped.


----------



## tt2ent

It can be had for as little as $215 but yea. 
Alright lets stop wasting energy and time here. 
Autobots! ROLL OUT !!


----------



## ScottALot

Okay, what you're trying to do is shift into the sixth gear when there IS NO SIXTH GEAR!


----------



## StrangleHold

Who knows. AMD claimed the disabled cores were fused/disconnected off. It wasnt untill, I think Biostar screwed up in the ACC setting in the bios and when you enabled it, it activated the cores. Then everybody followed. AMD just went along with it because it cost to much to (really) fuse off deactivated cores/cache.

So who knows if Intel really deactivated it on the core or if when the bios sees the chip it just deactivates through the bios. Even if can be activated I dont think anyone will because Intel is not a go with it like AMD is. Intel can have a heavy hand as everyone knows.


----------



## 87dtna

StrangleHold said:


> Who knows. AMD claimed the disabled cores were fused/disconnected off. It wasnt untill, I think Biostar screwed up in the ACC setting in the bios and when you enabled it, it activated the cores. Then everybody followed. AMD just went along with it because it cost to much to (really) fuse off deactivated cores/cache.
> 
> So who knows if Intel really deactivated it on the core or if when the bios sees the chip it just deactivates through the bios. Even if can be activated I dont think anyone will because Intel is not a go with it like AMD is. Intel can have a heavy hand as everyone knows.



Along those lines, perhaps a future chipset will come out on intel boards that will be able to unlock the HT.  Before the SB710/750, AMD chips could not unlock.  At one point, a 780g and SB700 was the highest there was when Phenom II was originally released.  Right now, a P55 is the highest in socket 1156, perhaps something will come out thats newer/better to be able to unlock.


----------



## StrangleHold

As far as I know, AMD did away with ACC with the 800 series SB. Think a few boards already have a unlocking switch on the board to bypass it or just have a flat out unlock setting in the bios.


----------



## tt2ent

@Stranglehold and 87dtna YES!!! exactly ! glad to know some poeple aren't so narrow minded
Its way too common for people to just think "o if it could be done it would have" 
ya kno >?


----------



## tt2ent

ScottALot said:


> Okay, what you're trying to do is shift into the sixth gear when there IS NO SIXTH GEAR!


After what we all have seen in the industry you think its not a possibility ? Cell phones, cpus, and all kinds of stuff are "handicapped" so that you'll dish out extra cash for the same product. 
WHy don't AMD and Intel have there CPU's running all @ the same frequency ? It's likely that its more work to handicap a product than to leave it as it is.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> glad to know some poeple aren't so narrow minded
> Its way too common for people to just think "o if it could be done it would have"


I don't suppose you are saying that we are "narrow minded" for thinking there is no way to unlock HT?



> Cell phones, cpus, and all kinds of stuff are "handicapped" so that you'll dish out extra cash for the same product.





> WHy don't AMD and Intel have there CPU's running all @ the same frequency ? It's likely that its more work to handicap a product than to leave it as it is.


Because some chips have defects and simply aren't of good enough quality. Some chips just aren't capable of certain speeds while staying below reasonable voltage and TDP limits.

Also, marketing. If you have only one product that performs the same, you can't cater for both performance and mainstream (and whatever other extremes/middlegrounds there are).


----------



## StrangleHold

tt2ent said:


> WHy don't AMD and Intel have there CPU's running all @ the same frequency ? It's likely that its more work to handicap a product than to leave it as it is.


 
Like said above. Plus with a wafer of CPUs they end up all over the place. Like a wafer of Phenom II, some will have bad cores, some will have bad cache. Some will clock good but with to much voltage to fit in a wattage envelope. The best ones will usually end up as BE models. And even some will have things disabled to fill supply and demand for a niche.


----------



## bomberboysk

StrangleHold said:


> As far as I know, AMD did away with ACC with the 800 series SB. Think a few boards already have a unlocking switch on the board to bypass it or just have a flat out unlock setting in the bios.


Asus is the only one with an unlock switch, Asrock has a little chip on some of their boards dedicated to unlocking, Biostar has some form of unlocking, and i cant remember if gigabyte has anything on the 800 SB's.


----------



## ScottALot

tt2ent said:


> After what we all have seen in the industry you think its not a possibility ? Cell phones, cpus, and all kinds of stuff are "handicapped" so that you'll dish out extra cash for the same product.
> WHy don't AMD and Intel have there CPU's running all @ the same frequency ? It's likely that its more work to handicap a product than to leave it as it is.



When you unlock an AMD chip, it's possible because there is a chip present. The reason you can't HT an i5 is because that capability does not exist on that chip.


----------



## tt2ent

When only 1 out of 7 Lynnfield CPUs doesn't have Hyperthreading it doesn't make you wonder if it's just a marketing technique ??!?! I mean cmon, you think Intel is going to make an entirely different manufacturing process for 1 out of 7 of the same exact hardware ??
EDIT- Excuse me 2 out of 7 have HT disabled. xeon 3430 and the i5 750


----------



## tt2ent

Seen a side by side image of the bottom of an i5 750 and i7 870 and they look different. 
Not positive it wasn't an 1156 and 1366 though.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> When only 1 out of 7 Lynnfield CPUs doesn't have Hyperthreading it doesn't make you wonder if it's just a marketing technique ??!?!


Of course it's just a marketing technique... you read the posts above? The thing is, whatever parts allow HT to work are _most likely_ physically disabled (laser-cut), so it would be impossible to get them back. The reason it was possible to enable a core on AMD CPUs is because they decided to take the cheaper route and instead of physically disabling the extra core they simply did it in BIOS - and as you know, a BIOS screw-up on certain motherboards allowed enabling the extra core (which didn't always work, since quite a few of them were disable because of defects).


----------



## Hyperboholic

hackapelite said:


> The reason it was possible to enable a core on AMD CPUs is because they decided to take the cheaper route and instead of physically disabling the extra core they simply did it in BIOS. QUOTE]
> 
> Is it possible that the motherboard BIOS that "see's" the i3/i5/i7 and enables hyperthreading could be patched to enable hyperthreading?  Agree'd, the i5 might come physically "maimed" from the factory, but probably not- the dual-core i5 chips are hyperthreading.  I see the fix in 2 parts- 1.) Fool the motherboard into activating the hyperthreading  2.) Find out if the i5 is electronically or physically deactivated.  Outcome tree... 1.) The motherboard patch unlocks hyperthreading, good to go.  2.) Motherboard patch enables an i5 BIOS patch.  3.) Potentially missing pins on i5 are identified as the culprit.  4.) System bursts into flames.  There must be somebody familiar with the motherboard BIOS that can weigh in here...


----------



## StrangleHold

Hyperboholic said:


> hackapelite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason it was possible to enable a core on AMD CPUs is because they decided to take the cheaper route and instead of physically disabling the extra core they simply did it in BIOS. QUOTE]
> 
> Is it possible that the motherboard BIOS that "see's" the i3/i5/i7 and enables hyperthreading could be patched to enable hyperthreading? Agree'd, the i5 might come physically "maimed" from the factory. I see the fix in 2 parts- 1.) Fool the motherboard into activating the hyperthreading 2.) Find out if the i5 is electronically or physically deactivated. Outcome tree... 1.) The motherboard patch unlocks hyperthreading, good to go. 2.) Motherboard patch enables an i5 BIOS patch. 3.) Potentially missing pins on i5 are identified as the culprit. 4.) System bursts into flames. There must be somebody familiar with the motherboard BIOS that can weigh in here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really makes no difference. When the unlocking was discovered on AMD processors. AMD was going to stop it at first, but backed off. When your the underdog you dont want to piss your customers off.
> 
> With Intel, if it (could) be unlocked by a bios setting. Intel would hit the roof. The Motherboard manufacture would probable get a C&D order from Intel with a threat of pulling there license to make Intel chipset boards.
Click to expand...


----------

