I mean, it's generally good yes, but there are use cases for turning it off too.
Yeah, that's why I said "typically" instead of "always".
XL-R8R said:
I'm only here to try and understand the logic (or lack of - aside from @Bill_Bright's previous post about potential security issues) of purchasing a HT-enabled CPU, just to turn the HT off and run it as a lesser unit.
To me, there is no logic in buying a HT-enabled CPU if you plan to immediately disable it. That makes no sense to me either and it suggests (to me) - unless the price was just "too good to be true" - a lack of homework was done before selecting and buying the CPU.
But if one already owns the CPU and later discovers having HT enabled presents an unacceptable security risk (perhaps due to a vulnerability that was discovered after purchase), or having HT enabled is adversely affecting performance of their particular tasks or program, then it might make sense to disable it.
There is a
HUGE difference between there being a vulnerability in a processor (or program), that vulnerability being "exposed" and a bad guy being able to by-pass all security measures unnoticed to exploit that vulnerability.
It is true a serious vulnerability was discovered that did impact security - but only under very specific scenarios rarely found out in the real-world was that vulnerability "exposed". And while the vulnerability did affect 100s of millions of devices, I am not aware of any verified reports of any computers that were exploited by bad guys. So again, if we keep our computers updated, and avoid being "click-happy", unless there is a valid technical/performance reason to disable HT, it is typically best to keep it enabled.
20191027_124427.jpg
20191027_124434.jpg
20191027_124445.jpg
