In which way is an FX-8350/8320/8370 different from a hyper-threaded quad-core cpu?

[yeti_yeti]

First of all I would like to give a disclaimer, I'm fairly new to this subject, please forgive me if I said some incredibly dumb stuff, as my knowledge is still fairly limited. I started doing a little research on CPU architectures a couple days ago and came across an article that expalined AMD's older gen fx cpus (piledriver and bulldozer architecture). The article said that a instead of having regular cores, these cpus have a "module", which fits 2 physical cores in one "place". After reading this I instantly tried searching up, how a "vishera" or "zambezi" module is different from a hyper-threaded core, which can be found in intel's cpus. So what makes an FX-8350(8 cores but 4 modules) different from an I5,I7 which has 4 cores,which are theoretically 8, due to hyper-threading?

 

[Supahos]

Basically it's two cores with one part telling each what to do. If you count a hypthreaded core as a core, then an AMD module will outperform a core+hyperthreading core... However the full core on Intel's side will smoke a single core in a module. AMD now employs basically the same technology with ryzen r5&r7 just calls it smt. Basically they have parts of another core that can do some tasks Durning gap in the primary core.

 

[geofelt]

Both use one "core" or module.(c/m)
Each c/m has several processing circuits. Some are duplicated and some less used functions have only one.

In the case of FX, most are duplicated, making each module function close to a full core.

In the case of intel, hyperthreading works a bit differently.
A second thread can use the resources not in use by the first thread.

In the case of FX, I guess that you get 90% of the performance on the second thread.
But, the basic architecture of FX was poor so single thread performance was not good. About 1400 passmark rating.

In the case of Intel, I guess that the second thread is about 35% effective, but the basic single thread performance due to architecture was much higher. perhaps 2000-2500 passmark