Disabling SMT is not likely to reduce power draw by any significant amount, aside from in tasks fully utilizing all cores, and even in those cases you will be losing an amount of performance that's disproportionately larger than the amount of power being saved, meaning you will actually see lower efficiency without SMT. It could even increase the power draw in some less heavily-threaded workloads if two threads that could efficiently be run on one core with SMT, need to be run on two cores instead. SMT is in part a power-saving feature (and in part a silicon-saving feature), since it allows each core to be more efficiently utilized for multithreaded workloads with a minimal increase in chip size and power draw relative to the performance gained....but the lack of SMT can mean some power savings, and this might be popular for internet cafes or schools that want efficiency to lower their power bill. To further back my theory, Internet cafe users would not need SMT anyway. 6 threads are enough for games today, and students can get away with even 2 cores.
It's not the cheapest 6-core at this time, and being a 6-core processor doesn't matter all that much if it lacks SMT. It will in most cases perform like a 4-core, 8-thread processor at both light and heavily-threaded workloads. It really should not be priced much higher than the 3300X's $120 MSRP, even though that CPU was only available in limited quantities. And I suspect the OEMs were not paying much more than that for them.Its the cheapest 6 core processor, but given very strong competition from Intel at the lower end, this processor makes no sense at all since it is likely going to be consistently slower.