Would an i3 and an i5 preform the same in multicore workloads?

[ANewFace]

I was just thinking of something. Since i3s have hyperthreading and i5s don't, then theoretically they both have 4 cores. So lets say for example if I took an i3 4160 and an i5 4690K, since they are both from the same family, if you down-clocked the 4690K so it ran at the same speed as the 4160, then theoretically shouldn't they preform the same in multicore workloads? Or to make it simpler. If a dual core i3 and quad core i5 ran at the same speed then wouldn't they preform the same in workloads. (Not gaming I know hyperthreading doesn't work in gaming)

[Str_Mape]

That would be a no, the additional threads aren't as powerful as full cores.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

No, a thread is not the same as a core.

[Oshino Shinobu]

No. Hyperthreading is not the same as having more cores

[Syntaxvgm]

Hyperthreading does not replace full cores. It will work like a real one, and it's better than nothing, but it will never be same as a real one. 

 

Kinda like a strapon 

[burnttoastnice]

I was just thinking of something. Since i3s have hyperthreading and i5s don't, then theoretically they both have 4 cores. So lets say for example if I took an i3 4160 and an i5 4690K, since they are both from the same family, if you down-clocked the 4690K so it ran at the same speed as the 4160, then theoretically shouldn't they preform the same in multicore workloads? Or to make it simpler. If a dual core i3 and quad core i5 ran at the same speed then wouldn't they preform the same in workloads. (Not gaming I know hyperthreading doesn't work in gaming)

 

Hyperthreading just uses your processor's idle time as extra processing time. I'm sure Linus did a techquickie on this.

Edit:

[NicekillBG]

will have noticeable differences  

[flibberdipper]

No. The i3 only has two cores, the i5 has 4.

[tomas710]

I was just thinking of something. Since i3s have hyperthreading and i5s don't, then theoretically they both have 4 cores. So lets say for example if I took an i3 4160 and an i5 4690K, since they are both from the same family, if you down-clocked the 4690K so it ran at the same speed as the 4160, then theoretically shouldn't they preform the same in multicore workloads? Or to make it simpler. If a dual core i3 and quad core i5 ran at the same speed then wouldn't they preform the same in workloads. (Not gaming I know hyperthreading doesn't work in gaming)

Physical cores count much more than threads, that's why the higher tier CPU (i5) has 4 cores and the lower one (i3) has 4 threads but 2 cores, cores are a physical unit on the die, threads are simply a process to utilize them better, but a core beats a thread every time (I'm saying this argument ignoring the existence of AMD, PLEASE don't bring that up as a reply, i'll go to your house and slap you twice if you do)

[tomas710]

Hyperthreading does not replace full cores. It will work like a real one, and it's better than nothing, but it will never be same as a real one. 

 

Kinda like a strapon 

And just like a strap on it confuses me, if it was double sided i would get it, but what does the person doing the humping get out of it, one of life great mysteries, strappies.

[spartaman64]

physical cores are better than hyperthreading

[i_build_nanosuits]

the i5 at the same clockspeed will work anywhere from 25% to 45% better depending on the application.

Usually on average around 35% better performance overall is what you get with an i5 at the same clockspeed.

[NumLock21]

Core i5 has turbo boost, while Core i3 does not. Core i5 also has larger cache at 6mb vs 4mb on the Core i3.

[a_block_of_wood]

Hyperthreading does not replace full cores. It will work like a real one, and it's better than nothing, but it will never be same as a real one. 

 

Kinda like a strapon 

lmao!

 

Then will AMD's 8-core perform much faster than i7's strapon? Nah... AMD's kind of limp..