Eight core game optimization, is there a benefit to buying an i7?

[Javathejhut]

If games are being optimized for AMD eight core processors, will games also be better optimized for quad core intel processors with hyperthreading? So if you are about to build a gaming pc is it best to go for an i7 over an i5 at this point?

[Guest]

i5 or simply a quad core CPU. It will be years before devs properly master the use of the full 8 cores.

[Kuzma]

Hyperthreading makes a VERY small difference in terms of gaming just because of the way it works,

[Emperor_Piehead]

crysis 3 was the first game to really start using the amd architecture and that was barely a lead over the 3570k.

[WoodenMarker]

Hyperthreading makes a VERY small difference in terms of gaming just because of the way it works,

Yep^

The i7 uses hyperthreading and not 8 cores. It's different especially for gaming since many games don't take advantage of it properly or in some cases at all.

[Call Of Dookie]

I have 2 gaming pc's but never really see a difference from 8 cores to 4 cores. Except when I'm streaming or doing multiple applications is when my 8 core really shines.

[sabot]

yes, the new xbox and playstation will be 8 core, so in the not to distant future they will optimize games for 8 core.

[KneesWeak]

i5 or simply a quad core CPU. It will be years before devs properly master the use of the full 8 cores.

I dont think it'll be years, after bf4 as an example I think big demanding AAA developers will really push for multithreaded optimizations, smaller less demanding games probably won't need multicore optimizations just because it doesn't stress your system, like lfd2 or other source engine games don't really need to run off of 2 or more cores because they really don't call for it.  Crysis 3 is already an example the 8350 has significantly worse single threaded performance than a i5 3570k but still posts much smoother framerates (lower min and higher avg).  Maybe it'll take years to "master it" but it seems like we're on our way especially with Windows 8 providing up to %20 more performance over Windows 7 with the 8350.  And next gen consoles using the Amd jaguar 8 core whatever.  

[KneesWeak]

crysis 3 was the first game to really start using the amd architecture and that was barely a lead over the 3570k.

farcry3?

[TechFan@ic]

Yep^

The i7 uses hyperthreading and not 8 cores. It's different especially for gaming since many games don't take advantage of it properly or in some cases at all.

Exactly what WoodenMarker has said, the optimizations would be for cores not logical threads, in games optimized for the AMD architecture hyperthreading is barely utilized but per core utilization is significantly higher compared to other games.

The 8 core (6 cores for the XBOX1) optimizations will create such a large difference between a quad core AMD FX CPU (FX 4350) as compared to an 8 core AMD CPU (FX 8350) or a dual core hyperthreaded intel CPU (i3) as compared to a quad core (i5).

That's why I always tend to recommend avoiding i3s for game builds & quad core AMD's especially when 6 core AMD CPUs like the FX 6300 are incredibly inexpensive and perform very close to a quad core intel sandy bridge when all cores are utilized.

The difference between an i5 & an i7 in terms of performance when hyperthreading is fully utilized is typically about 20%, that's the same performance improvement of one extra core, so you can think of the i7 as a 5 core CPU and the i5 as a 4 core CPU.

[Emperor_Piehead]

farcry3?

Oh yeah I forgot.

[KneesWeak]

 so you can think of the i7 as a 5 core CPU and the i5 as a 4 core CPU.

yeah but not really, strickly in terms of gaming performance.

[Glenwing]

There is almost no difference between hyperthreaded and non-hyperthreaded CPUs, even in games which take advantage of more cores than the CPU has.  This has been shown time and again with benchmarks on highly-threaded games like battlefield 3.  4-cores HTT and 4-cores no-HTT perform similarly, while 6-cores no-HTT pulls ahead of both substantially.

 

As long as the only difference between an i5 and i7 is hyperthreading, it doesn't look like it will ever be worth it, due to the way games currently utilize CPU resources.  It is not about how many threads are available and how many games can use, even if games become optimized to use more.  It is about hyperthreading, and as a technology hyperthreading is just not very useful to current-generation games. Hyperthreading won't have a large impact until games essentially become less efficient, so that they have more idle cycles to dedicate to the secondary threads created by hyperthreading. Unless we see that, it doesn't matter how many threads a game uses, it doesn't matter if games use more threads because of the 8-core consoles, the performance boost from hyperthreading in gaming will be marginal at best.

[Kuzma]

There is almost no difference between hyperthreaded and non-hyperthreaded CPUs, even in games which take advantage of more cores than the CPU has.  This has been shown time and again with benchmarks on highly-threaded games like battlefield 3.  4-cores HTT and 4-cores no-HTT perform similarly, while 6-cores no-HTT pulls ahead of both substantially.

 

As long as the only difference between an i5 and i7 is hyperthreading, it doesn't look like it will ever be worth it, due to the way games currently utilize CPU resources.  It is not about how many threads are available and how many games can use, even if games become optimized to use more.  It is about hyperthreading, and as a technology hyperthreading is just not very useful to current-generation games. Hyperthreading won't have a large impact until games essentially become less efficient, so that they have more idle cycles to dedicate to the secondary threads created by hyperthreading. Unless we see that, it doesn't matter how many threads a game uses, it doesn't matter if games use more threads because of the 8-core consoles, the performance boost from hyperthreading in gaming will be marginal at best.

This +1

 

For an EXTREMELY basic explanation to how hyper threading works; it's essentially the use of the idle parts of a core being used as additional cores, for example if I had something like on a dual core processor (a+1) - (b-2) + (c+3) -  (d-4) then core 1 would be busy on a+1 and core 2 would be busy on b-2 but it since that's not a very demanding task there is a lot of computing capacity wasted; this remaining capacity is then used as a thread; so the second thread of core 1 would begin c+3 and the second thread of core 2 would begin d-4. This would be faster than the processor simple doing a+1 and b-2 waiting and then doing c+3 then d-4. In games this makes next to no difference as the cores are being loaded to their maximum capacity and therefore the hyper threading would not be any use.

 

For example when I ran SuperPI and Cinebench at the same time I set SuperPI to use only 1 thread and cinebench used my 2 cores but also had a 3rd thread.

 

(For those of you that don't know how mobile i3s, i5s and i7s work: a mobile i3 is dual core; a mobile i5 is dual core with hyper threading; a mobile i7 is quad core.)

[Analog]

This +1

 

For an EXTREMELY basic explanation to how hyper threading works; it's essentially the use of the idle parts of a core being used as additional cores, for example if I had something like on a dual core processor (a+1) - (b-2) + (c+3) -  (d-4) then core 1 would be busy on a+1 and core 2 would be busy on b-2 but it since that's not a very demanding task there is a lot of computing capacity wasted; this remaining capacity is then used as a thread; so the 2 second thread of core 1 would begin c+3 and the second thread of core 2 would begin d-4. This would be faster than the processor simple doing a+1 and b-2 waiting and then doing c+3 then d-4. In games this makes next to no difference as the cores are being loaded to their maximum capacity and therefore the hyper threading would not be any use.

 

For example when I ran SuperPI and Cinebench at the same time I set SuperPI to use only 1 thread and cinebench used my 2 cores but also had a 3rd thread.

 

(For those of you that don't know how mobile i3s, i5s and i7s work: a mobile i3 is dual core; a mobile i5 is dual core with hyper threading; a mobile i7 is quad core.)

 

Mobile i7s do have also hyperthreading. I mean they are quad cores with eight logical cores.

[Glenwing]

This +1

 

For an EXTREMELY basic explanation to how hyper threading works; it's essentially the use of the idle parts of a core being used as additional cores, for example if I had something like on a dual core processor (a+1) - (b-2) + (c+3) -  (d-4) then core 1 would be busy on a+1 and core 2 would be busy on b-2 but it since that's not a very demanding task there is a lot of computing capacity wasted; this remaining capacity is then used as a thread; so the 2 second thread of core 1 would begin c+3 and the second thread of core 2 would begin d-4. This would be faster than the processor simple doing a+1 and b-2 waiting and then doing c+3 then d-4. In games this makes next to no difference as the cores are being loaded to their maximum capacity and therefore the hyper threading would not be any use.

 

For example when I ran SuperPI and Cinebench at the same time I set SuperPI to use only 1 thread and cinebench used my 2 cores but also had a 3rd thread.

 

(For those of you that don't know how mobile i3s, i5s and i7s work: a mobile i3 is dual core; a mobile i5 is dual core with hyper threading; a mobile i7 is quad core.)

 

The last comment I don't think is quite correct; AFAIK all mobile CPUs have hyperthreading, the i3s are just clocked lower than i5s.  It's an arbitrary separation in the branding.

[Kuzma]

The last comment I don't think is quite correct; AFAIK all mobile CPUs have hyperthreading, the i3s are just clocked lower than i5s.  It's an arbitrary separation in the branding.

O.o oh... Last time I used a mobile i3 it didn't have hyper threading so I made the assumption that none of them did x.x