More Cores or Threads?

[Londoge]

In general, is it better to have more cores or more threads for gaming, coding, and game development (unity/unreal)? I know that each may have a different answer but thanks in advance.

 

Clarification: I am choosing between 2 CPUs, the 8700k and 9700k, one with more cores, and 1 with more threads, and need to know which would be better.  The 8700k has 6 cores 12 threads @ 3.7GHz and the 9700k has 8 cores 8 threads @ 3.6 GHz, and does not have hyperthreading.

 

Clarification 2: Benchmarks are pretty similar with benchmarking software (~5% difference), but haven't found benches for the games I play as well as compiler and dev engines I use.  

[minibois]

Just comparing core/thread count is nearly useless in making a decision. Just check for benchmarks of a CPU to determine if it is a good choice for your machine.

Of course more cores/threads is preferred, but if your use case (such as gaming) takes advantage of single core speed more getting a lower core count might be worth it in the end.

[SupaKomputa]

get more core and threads. for game development, you can also use Virtual Machine to test your game in multiple OS / Environment, you can assign a dedicated core for each vm running. Threads usually counted the same as core in VM.

[Londoge]

5 minutes ago, Minibois said:

Just comparing core/thread count is nearly useless in making a decision. Just check for benchmarks of a CPU to determine if it is a good choice for your machine.

Of course more cores/threads is preferred, but if your use case (such as gaming) takes advantage of single core speed more getting a lower core count might be worth it in the end.

Benchmarks are pretty similar with benchmarking software (~5% difference), but haven't found benches for the games I play as well as compiler and dev engines I use.  Adding to main post for clarification.

[Londoge]

3 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

get more core and threads. for game development, you can also use Virtual Machine to test your game in multiple OS / Environment, you can assign a dedicated core for each vm running. Threads usually counted the same as core in VM.

Asking about getting more of one or the other, not both.

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, Londoge said:

Asking about getting more of one or the other, not both.

Well the only modern core/thread count comparisons are i7 7700k vs i5 8600k/9600k or i7 8700k vs i7 9700k. Don't buy a 7700k unless you're replacing a 6th or 7th gen CPU and don't want to buy a new motherboard and found a better deal on a used CPU. 

 

However, all your problems would basically be solved by getting a Ryzen 7 2700 or something. 8 cores and 16 threads doesn't really have a competitor for value oriented workstation loads. It's as cheap as an i5 8600k and has serious multithreaded muscle. Since there's no 10 core 10 thread CPU then you've got no reason to worry.

 

Another thing to note is that AMD and Intel have different implementation of multithreaded technologies, AMD's SMT is different from hyperthreading, programs take to each in a different way.

[SupaKomputa]

You can't get anymore than 2 threads per core. And there's no 1 core 12 threads.

It's not really benificial for the gamer to have more threads, as most games are not (yet) optimized for multicore.

Now for developer it is better to have more logical processors (threads) for the reason i'm explained above.

 

If core count are not similar, say one cpu have 8 cores, the other have 4 cores 8 threads, its better to have the first one.

But comparing say 8 core vs 6 cores + 12 threads, well i prefer the 6 core.

But in the times where you can get 16 threads for just $250, why choose the lower one?

[nick name]

You're not going to compare fairly if you're not going to say which CPUs you're considering.  Part of the conversation should be speed.  Part of the conversation is probably cost.  For all we know we are talking about a 4 core 8 thread CPU vs an 8 core 8 thread CPU.  However, if that is the case then the 8 core is most likely better considering one assumes it's the current top i7 versus some weaker Intel offering.  

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, SupaKomputa said:

You can't get anymore than 2 threads per core

Rare exception: the Knight's landing 64 core 256 thread Xeon phi that Linus reviewed a while back

 

[Nogghan]

26 minutes ago, Londoge said:

In general, is it better to have more cores or more threads for gaming, coding, and game development (unity/unreal)? I know that each may have a different answer but thanks in advance.

 

Clarification: I am choosing between 2 CPUs, one with more cores, and 1 with more threads, and need to know which would be better.  I am NOT saying which CPUs intentionally to avoid bias. 

 

Clarification 2: Benchmarks are pretty similar with benchmarking software (~5% difference), but haven't found benches for the games I play as well as compiler and dev engines I use.  

well the clock speed of those cores and threads comes into this as well so this doesnt really give us all the info we need

 

[nick name]

I believe it's ARM CPUs that might have more than 2 threads per core.  

[Mira Yurizaki]

I think it highly depends on the type of workload and the design of the processor itself. Modern, high-performance processors often have duplicated execution resources to take on multiple instructions at once. You can have workloads that can't fill this up and workloads that can. Simultaneous multithreading is to take advantage of the former, allowing another thread to use the unused execution resources.

 

So if you are running a task that takes few execution resources on a "wide" processor (one with many execution resources), then more threads would definitely benefit much better than more cores. Conversely, if you have a task that takes a lot of execution resources on a "narrow" processor, then more cores is better. Though you could probably just take out the processor design bit and get the same conclusion.

[Londoge]

17 minutes ago, Nogghan said:

well the clock speed of those cores and threads comes into this as well so this doesnt really give us all the info we need

 

Added to original post, along with core/thread counts.

 

5 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I think it highly depends on the type of workload and the design of the processor itself. Modern, high-performance processors often have duplicated execution resources to take on multiple instructions at once. You can have workloads that can't fill this up and workloads that can. Simultaneous multithreading is to take advantage of the former, allowing another thread to use the unused execution resources.

 

So if you are running a task that takes few execution resources on a "wide" processor (one with many execution resources), then more threads would definitely benefit much better than more cores. Conversely, if you have a task that takes a lot of execution resources on a "narrow" processor, then more cores is better. Though you could probably just take out the processor design bit and get the same conclusion.

The workload would be gaming and code compiling mostly.  For the coding aspect, the number of execution resources is going to vary greatly depending on the program I am developing.

[Radium_Angel]

23 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

8 cores and 16 threads

How...quaint

(Pats my 20 core/40 thread Xeon system lovingly)

I'm just giving you a hard time

 

 

[Londoge]

24 minutes ago, nick name said:

You're not going to compare fairly if you're not going to say which CPUs you're considering.  Part of the conversation should be speed.  Part of the conversation is probably cost.  For all we know we are talking about a 4 core 8 thread CPU vs an 8 core 8 thread CPU.  However, if that is the case then the 8 core is most likely better considering one assumes it's the current top i7 versus some weaker Intel offering.  

You're probably right.  I added my choices to the original post.

[porina]

For workloads that don't need or can't use massive numbers of threads, no-HT is more predictable in performance.

 

For a multi-thread capable workload, you have to work out how much threads are worth compared to cores. Take a simplistic case, as it scales up from there. One core one thread vs one core two threads. It depends on the application.

 

Some applications see zero % difference e.g. Prime95 like heavy AVX usage where not ram bandwidth bound. That is, HT has zero benefit in this case. It can actually have negative benefit in the sense power consumption goes up, but you do no more useful work.

 

Some applications see a good boost. Cinebench R15 would be an example of this category. That has about 30% boost from having HT/SMT compared to not. Roughly speaking, a 6c12t CPU would equal a 8c8t CPU.

 

Some exceptional cases might see 50% or greater boost from HT/SMT but the only ones I know of currently are synthetic benchmarks.

 

So to decide you need to work out how your use cases scale with HT/SMT to decide if it is worth it. Also you can't negate other considerations, like operating clock and other system limitations like ram bandwidth.

[Londoge]

Just now, Radium_Angel said:

How...quaint

(Pats my 20 core/40 thread Xeon system lovingly)

I'm just giving you a hard time

 

 

Nice system you got there man

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Londoge said:

The workload would be gaming and code compiling mostly.  For the coding aspect, the number of execution resources is going to vary greatly depending on the program I am developing.

In a general use case then, if the total amount of threads are limited, then it's better to have more cores. That is, an 8C/8T processor is better than a 4C/8T processor.

[Radium_Angel]

1 minute ago, Londoge said:

Nice system you got there man

Thanks, I was tired of the upgrade treadmill, so I went all out...

Helps not being a gamer, so I don't have to chase the Gigahertz train

[porina]

Ok, my last reply was written before I saw the OP edit. Knowing the actual CPUs, I'd go 9700k for my uses, as it'll be more predictable and still equal or exceed the 8700k in most cases. Also note the all core turbo is what you need to compare if you're making use of all available resources. The 8700k is only 4.3 GHz, whereas the 9700k is 4.6 GHz.

[nick name]

Have you checked Puget System's site to see if they have any benches for the programs you use?  

[Nogghan]

On 1/22/2019 at 2:52 PM, Londoge said:

In general, is it better to have more cores or more threads for gaming, coding, and game development (unity/unreal)? I know that each may have a different answer but thanks in advance.

 

Clarification: I am choosing between 2 CPUs, the 8700k and 9700k, one with more cores, and 1 with more threads, and need to know which would be better.  The 8700k has 6 cores 12 threads @ 3.7GHz and the 9700k has 8 cores 8 threads @ 3.6 GHz, and does not have hyperthreading.

 

Clarification 2: Benchmarks are pretty similar with benchmarking software (~5% difference), but haven't found benches for the games I play as well as compiler and dev engines I use.  

think of the 9700k v 8700k like an 8600k v a 7700k its basically the same performance gap for the other CPUs so how ever much the difference is from the 8600k and the 7700k its probably very close to the difference between the 8700k and 9700k