They're all equal in the sense that physically they're all the same. If you load every hardware thread equally, they run at equal speed. In a sense each thread is exactly 1/2 of a core.
It's not like "logical CPU 3" is slower than "logical CPU 7"!
This is like a highway with equal width lanes. Sure, there might be more traffic in some lanes, but the lanes themselves are equal.
The new Intel CPU is like 8 wide lanes that can be used by up to 16 motorcycles or 8 cars (or combinations thereof), alongside 8 medium-width lanes only usable by small cars. It's bizarre for a desktop CPU.
PS: Looking at the die shots, it boggles the mind that they didn't include 16 efficiency cores! They're so tiny that it would have been a negligible area increase, but given the relative performance it seems like it would have been worthwhile. I'm guessing memory bandwidth limits are holding them back somewhere...
Wouldn't hyper-threading be more like a highway in which certain pairs of lanes occasionally merge into a single lane temporarily? If one lane has loads of traffic, you're going to want to enter the highway on a non-adjacent lane.
It's not like "logical CPU 3" is slower than "logical CPU 7"!
This is like a highway with equal width lanes. Sure, there might be more traffic in some lanes, but the lanes themselves are equal.
The new Intel CPU is like 8 wide lanes that can be used by up to 16 motorcycles or 8 cars (or combinations thereof), alongside 8 medium-width lanes only usable by small cars. It's bizarre for a desktop CPU.
PS: Looking at the die shots, it boggles the mind that they didn't include 16 efficiency cores! They're so tiny that it would have been a negligible area increase, but given the relative performance it seems like it would have been worthwhile. I'm guessing memory bandwidth limits are holding them back somewhere...