Zen 5 testing shows AMD's performance and power gains with threading — Intel ditched threading with Lunar Lake

AMD Ryzen Mobile Processor
(Image credit: AMD)

One of the major surprises Intel revealed during its Lunar Lake architecture announcement was the decision to remove Hyper-Threading (SMT) from its next-generation thin and light-optimized architecture. New Zen 5/Zen5C multi-threading benchmarks from Phoronix suggest that this feature still benefits AMD CPUs, showing significant performance and efficiency gains from having two threads on a single core.

Phoronix tested AMD's Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in Linux with its four Zen 5 cores and eight Zen 5c cores, all featuring simultaneous multithreading (SMT) capabilities. The Linux-focused outlet tested the chip with SMT and turned on and off in various tests in Ubuntu 24.04 to see the advantages (or disadvantages) of AMD's SMT.

All 57 benchmarks showed a performance advantage with SMT enabled. On average, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 performed 18% faster when using SMT than running the same benchmarks without SMT. Some benchmarks performed even better than 18% with SMT, showing as much as a 67% performance advantage in the case of the toyBrot Fractal Generator benchmark.

Power consumption was also virtually unaffected when SMT was enabled. Phoronix recorded an average power consumption of 19.27 watts with SMT disabled on the Ryzen AI 9 chip and 19.63 watts with SMT enabled, translating into a measly 2% power impact with SMT enabled. Thermals were also unaffected, with the chip operating at identical temperatures with SMT enabled and disabled.

(Image credit: Phoronix)

The Phoronix benchmarks demonstrate that Zen 5 and Zen 5c benefit massively from multi-threading technology. In the case of the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, AMD is only giving up 2% of its power to extract a very impressive 18% more performance from the chip, significantly improving efficiency.

Ironically, Intel removed Hyper-Threading in Lunar Lake to improve performance efficiency. Its next-gen Lion Cove P-cores for Lunar Lake lack Hyper-Threading, so it relies on its substantially faster next-gen E-cores to pick up the slack. Intel says that removing Hyper-Threading allowed its designers to squeeze a 30% improvement in performance per power per area out of the Lion Cove P-cores.

Another critique Intel made on its Hyper-Threading tech was that it was only used as a last resort in its outgoing hybrid CPU architectures, where the secondary threads on the P-cores were only getting leveraged after the E-cores were fully saturated. It was purportedly another reason Intel ditched Hyper-Threading in Lunar Lake.

Nevertheless, Phoronix's testing confirms that Hyper-Threading/SMT is still highly advantageous, even from a power efficiency perspective. There is an argument to be made that AMD's architecture probably benefits more from multi-threading than Intel's competing architectures do. Still, regardless, AMD's Zen 5 architecture demonstrates that multi-threading is advantageous if you optimize for it.

It will be interesting to see how AMD's Ryzen AI 300 series processors compare to Intel's competing Lunar Lake products in the future. We won't have to wait long for comparisons; Lunar Lake is set to arrive next month.

Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • rgd1101
    and what about security?
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    rgd1101 said:
    and what about security?
    likely benefit ditching it, but honestly what is the % of ppl that would be effected by any attack vs how many benefit from performance?

    Not saying all places shouldnt care (i.e. medical/gov agencies) but ur normal every day John & Jill will likely never care
    Reply
  • usertests
    rgd1101 said:
    and what about security?
    Only the most paranoid home users should consider disabling it, and I don't think AMD's implementation has had as many exploits as Intel's.
    Reply
  • coolitic
    usertests said:
    Only the most paranoid home users should consider disabling it, and I don't think AMD's implementation has had as many exploits as Intel's.
    Paranoid home users w/ technical competency know that it isn't the real vector for attack anyways.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Trying to make any overall SMT efficiency conclusions based on a laptop platform seems useless. All you can really say is that when the CPUs are heavily power limited it's a net gain.

    It's looking like Intel's strategy moving forward is using the E-cores on the client side of things in place of SMT. They're more space efficient and allow the P-cores to be smaller as well. It's a move that makes sense from a business perspective since they're leveraging the E-cores in enterprise and low power parts as well.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    The article said:
    The Phoronix benchmarks demonstrate that Zen 5 and Zen 5c benefit massively from multi-threading technology. In the case of the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, AMD is only giving up 2% of its power to extract a very impressive 18% more performance from the chip, significantly improving efficiency.

    Ironically, Intel removed Hyper-Threading in Lunar Lake to improve performance efficiency.
    Mike Clark said the dual-decoder microarchitecture of Zen 5 works differently between single-threaded and SMT modes. When executing multiple threads, each thread gets its own decoder. He also said there are a couple other per-thread resources, but I forget which and I think the decoder is really the main one.

    In other words, I think this doesn't invalidate what Intel said about Hyperthreading, in Lions Cove. It just says that while Intel went in the direction of eliminating SMT, AMD went in the direction of understanding its bottlenecks and optimizing them.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    The article said:
    Intel says that removing Hyper-Threading allowed its designers to squeeze a 30% improvement in performance per power per area out of the Lion Cove P-cores.
    To be clear, the 30% number is some kind of weird metric they concocted. IMO, it's just an exercise in claiming bigger numbers, rather than anything terribly useful.

    They said a single thread has a 15% better perf/W and 10% better perf/area advantage vs. a single thread running on an equivalent core that's HT-capable.
    They said multithreaded apps have 5% better perf/W vs. a comparable core running 2 threads. However, on perf/area, the non-HT core is 15% less efficient than a comparable hyperthreaded core.

    It really would've been nice if you'd quoted these slides more precisely, or just posted them for people to see the key points I just outlined.

    Anyway, whether HT makes sense is really a question of whether you're optimizing for lightly-threaded workloads and prioritizing power-efficiency, or focused mainly on multi-threaded workloads and optimizing for perf/$. This aligns with Intel's decision to remove it from the client version of Lions Cove, but to retain it in the server variant of the P-core.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    rgd1101 said:
    and what about security?
    Intel's got you there: the server version of Lions Cove (where side-channel attacks tend to be the biggest concern) will retain hyperthreading!

    Security is pretty easily dealt with by hypervisors and OS schedulers now having the capability to not to split a physical core between VMs or processes.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    thestryker said:
    Trying to make any overall SMT efficiency conclusions based on a laptop platform seems useless.
    Power does complicate the picture, but then multithreaded workloads tend to be power-limited (or thermally-limited - basically the same thing) almost no matter where they're run!

    thestryker said:
    All you can really say is that when the CPUs are heavily power limited it's a net gain.
    Intel is claiming SMT actually hurts power-efficiency. So, running it on a more heavily power-limited platform is actually a more strenuous endorsement for Zen 5's implementation!
    Reply
  • thestryker
    bit_user said:
    Intel is claiming SMT actually hurts power-efficiency. So, running it on a more heavily power-limited platform is actually a more strenuous endorsement for Zen 5's implementation!
    Intel is claiming SMT hurts power efficiency in a hypothetical, but that hypothesis also compares a CPU with SMT to one optimized without it.
    Reply