Query regarding hyperthreading

[idieorudie]

Does ht cut the thread's performance in half of the single core performance?

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS50lJicXc

[zappian]

No.

HT a dual core makes it get 60% of performance of a true quad core.

i3 vs i5 for example.

At least according to cinebench multi threaded results.

[NeverNotExhausted]

No.

HT a dual core makes it get 60% of performance of a true quad core.

i3 vs i5 for example.

At least according to cinebench multi threaded results.

 

I wouldn't say 60 percent, it's more like 70-80 from my experience. Hyperthreading is getting alot better these days

[Sakkura]

It's rarely more than a 30% boost. Here's a comparison of the Core i3-3220 and Pentium G2130, they run at nearly the same clocks and use the same architecture; the Core i3's main advantage is hyperthreading, but it does also have 0.1GHz higher clocks. The biggest performance advantage is 36% in 7-zip.

[idieorudie]

So is it actually useful?

[Sakkura]

So is it actually useful?

 

Sure, as long as the software you're running can take advantage of the number of available cores/threads.

[zappian]

I wouldn't say 60 percent, it's more like 70-80 from my experience. Hyperthreading is getting alot better these days

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/2558642_woomack_cinebench_r15_core_i5_4460_505_cb/

http://hwbot.org/submission/2684160_esi13_cinebench_r15_core_i3_4130_339_cb/

(505-339) / 100 = 1.66

66%.

[idieorudie]

Sure, as long as the software you're running can take advantage of the number of available cores/threads.

So I will get just slightly less performance than my i5 if I had bought an i3 for gaming?

[Sakkura]

So I will get just slightly less performance than my i5 if I had bought an i3 for gaming?

 

Well, many games are going to be GPU-bottlenecked in most situations, but there's still going to be a significant gap between the Core i3 and i5 in CPU-heavy games that actually utilize 4 cores.

[idieorudie]

http://hwbot.org/submission/2558642_woomack_cinebench_r15_core_i5_4460_505_cb/

http://hwbot.org/submission/2684160_esi13_cinebench_r15_core_i3_4130_339_cb/

(505-339) / 100 = 1.66

66%.

%age more performance = [(higher score - lower score)/(lower score)] x 100

That is 48.97% more than the i3 it seems

[NeverNotExhausted]

http://hwbot.org/submission/2558642_woomack_cinebench_r15_core_i5_4460_505_cb/

http://hwbot.org/submission/2684160_esi13_cinebench_r15_core_i3_4130_339_cb/

(505-339) / 100 = 1.66

66%.

 

And here's benches showing the 4790k getting better single thread performance in passmark than a 4670k, which is actually impossible because hyperthreading decreases single core performance.

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K

 

The real world is always going to differ from synthetic benches

[idieorudie]

Well, many games are going to be GPU-bottlenecked in most situations, but there's still going to be a significant gap between the Core i3 and i5 in CPU-heavy games that actually utilize 4 cores.

Which games use 4 cores?

[zappian]

%age more performance = [(higher score - lower score)/(lower score)] x 100

That is 48.97% more than the i3 it seems

 

Answer:

Calculate percentage difference 

between V₁ = 505 and V₂ = 339 

( | V₁ - V₂ | / ((V₁ + V₂)/2) ) * 100 

= ( | 505 - 339 | / ((505 + 339)/2) ) * 100 

= ( | 166 | / (844/2) ) * 100 

= ( 166 / 422 ) * 100 

= 0.393365 * 100 

= 39.3365% difference

 

Which means the i3 gets 60% of the multithreaded performance compared to an i5.

AKA loses 40% of performance.

[Sakkura]

Which games use 4 cores?

 

BF4 (multiplayer) and Crysis 3 for example.

[SkilledRebuilds]

BF4 (multiplayer) and Crysis 3 for example.

And probably a few more, it doesn't have to be a LOT of CPU usage shown,.. just capable of distributing 4-6 threaded workloads to reduce the usage of each core,,... that'd be nice to have as standard fare..

 

It's taken this long,.. god... imagine how much longer we have to wait!

[idieorudie]

Answer:

Calculate percentage difference

between V₁ = 505 and V₂ = 339

( | V₁ - V₂ | / ((V₁ + V₂)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 505 - 339 | / ((505 + 339)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 166 | / (844/2) ) * 100

= ( 166 / 422 ) * 100

= 0.393365 * 100

= 39.3365% difference

Which means the i3 gets 60% of the multithreaded performance compared to an i5.

AKA loses 40% of performance.

That's the percentage difference I'm talking about the percentage more over the i3

[Sakkura]

In multithreaded work, a Core i5 will typically be around 50-65% faster than a Core i3 at the same clocks. In less threaded situations, the Core i3 can get closer to the Core i5, and of course in a GPU bottlenecked situation they'll perform nearly the same.

[SteveGrabowski]

Which games use 4 cores?

 

Virtually every new game uses at least 4 cores. Most new games can also use 8+ threads. An i3 will run games fine now thanks to the hyperthreading simulating four cores, but I wouldn't expect it to last too long. Thus an i5 would really make sense if you can fit it into your budget, especially if you're running an AMD video card. An i7  or Xeon E3 (1230v3 or higher) is even better since games are starting to use those extra threads, though as of now they don't translate to much performance over an i5 except in a few select games (e.g., Crysis 3, Watchdogs, Dragon Age Inquisition). I think the i5-4590 is probably the best bang for your buck gaming CPU right now, with four strong cores that run at 3.5GHz. Not too bad for $190. Though if you're ok with rebates the extra $30 for an i5-4690k is easily worth it.