Any advantage on using a SMT-capable microprocessor?

[FilipeEstima]

I'm thinking about an upgrade to my system, which currently runs an entry-level AMD Athlon 3000G microprocessor. Despite price consideration, I need to know if a SMT-capable microprocessor will give me better performance in QB64 executables. While making a list of possible choices, I found some threads at a forum where SMT was discussed. I was considering a Ryzen 3 3200G, but upon learning it isn't capable of SMT, that made me question the choice.

I do know that QB64 takes advantage of multiple cores, as this was discussed somewhere in this forum; does SMT improve it in any way?

Sometimes I run 2 or 3 simultaneous QB64 programs; CPU usage frequently reaches 98% in those cases, that's why I'm considering a more capable CPU. Should I favor a SMT-capable model, since I intend to run more than 2 QB64 programs at a time?

[FilipeEstima]

I suppose that's not a relevant question :p

[Dimster]

I have no ideal if there is any advantage over multiprocessing v's multithreads. I would assume, co-processors in the same computer would only be beneficial if you are running two different programs at the same time. Otherwise, running only one program would have a processor idle for long periods of time. One processor with multithreads would be a little more effecient way to run two programs at once but, and I could very well be wrong, may need a large CPU to maintain a reasonable speed in the processing.

[bplus]

IF SMT means Multi-Thread then no advantage for QB64 programs.

CPU time is split-up or regulated by OS. If one program is idle more CPU time is shared with the other program you are running and the 1000 and one other processes the OS is running in background.