3 Core + HyperThreading Vs 4 Core (Intel)

[DarkBlade2117]

19 minutes ago, iLoiter said:

Should of mentioned why I asked in the first place, sorry. Due to Linus's virtualization gaming videos, I was wondering if 5820k clocked at 4.0 split into two systems would perform better then a similarly clocked i5.

I think you all need to refresh your page and see his edit.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

it can be argued that each module is "one and a half core" but that still wouldnt be triple core.

 

difference between hyperthread and AMD's modules is pretty simple:

- hyperthread is one core, it may be a dang beefy one, but its only one core. this core has the "I/O" to handle two threads at once, and shares its resources between them

- AMD's modules has two actual cores, but the "lesser used" parts are shared, beyond that the two threads do not interact.

Still a 6 core technically as they are physical actual cores where as a hyperthread is just nicking resources from a however much of a un-used core so it can perform well in some situations but almost make no difference in others  

[manikyath]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

Still a 6 core technically as they are physical actual cores where as a hyperthread is just nicking resources from a however much of a un-used core so it can perform well in some situations but almost make no difference in others  

the "6-core" is a very thin line, because they're not 6 "entire" cores.

 

see it like this: a company has a team of 6 plumbers, but theres a specific drill type they only have 3 of, so they have to share it.

if more than 3 plumbers need that drill together there'll be a decrease in plumbing performance, otherwise they're all okay.

 

the issue is, they're defenately 6 plumbers. but where is the line in sharing tools between 6 plumbers, and 6 plumbers needing to share tools that much that they're basicly doing the work of 3 plumbers.

[Tech Deals]

32 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

fx6300

Don't tell the AMD fans that, they'll have a cow!  It is a 6 core, swear!

 

The sad fact is that even in multi-threaded tasks, a i3-6100 is about equal in speed to the FX 6300...  Even heavy multi-tasking, look at Cinebench results...

[Demonking]

Just go into windows & disable 1 core on an i5/i7 then you have a 3 core.

[typographie]

3 hours ago, iLoiter said:

Edit:  Should of mentioned why I asked in the first place, sorry. Due to Linus's virtualization gaming videos, I was wondering if 5820k clocked at 4.0 split into two systems would perform better then a similarly clocked i5.

It reallllly depends on what you're doing. In some workloads (a lot of games, specifically) the i5 of the same architecture and same clock speed could already be functionally neck-and-neck with the whole 5820K. If four or fewer cores aren't in heavy use, the 5820K doesn't get to use it's advantages.

 

But in a really well-threaded workload, half a 5820K is still six logical cores, so hypothetically it could fall somewhere in between an i5-4690K and an i7-4790K.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i'm on it...i have an i7-4770K (haswell) clocked at 4.2ghz...i will run R15 cinebench with both 3 cores + HT and 4 cores no HT and i will post the results in a few minutes...stay tuned (it's interesting)!!

[i_build_nanosuits]

So the results are in...turns out 3 cores + HT is slightly faster at multi-threaded loads.

Single-threaded performance is the same...but since most softwares will not use hyper-threading as well as cinebench does i think it's safe to assume

that a true 4 core chip like a core i5 would perform slightly better than this overall...but for video rendering and other fully predicteable multi-threaded loads

the 3 core +HT would be just as good if not a bit better...

 

Here are the screenshots of my runs...it says 3.5ghz but it was running at 4.2ghz and all the other settings remained the same...and i'm typing this on the 3C +HT

You can see 4C +HT higher in the list the 868 was my attempt at a world record (LOL) i think this was 4.4ghz or something (My CPU is a dud)

 

4 cores, no HT :

 

 

3 Cores + HT :

 

 

 

EDIT:  Playing DOOM right now and it's the same as 4C + HT...so for gaming, defenetly not much difference between 3 or 4 cores...

 

 

[niofalpha]

Holy fuck, this thread got derailed.

3 hours ago, iLoiter said:

Should of mentioned why I asked in the first place, sorry. Due to Linus's virtualization gaming videos, I was wondering if 5820k clocked at 4.0 split into two systems would perform better then a similarly clocked i5.

Yeah it will probably perform similar. Slightly worse in some tasks, better in others. I really doubt you'll notice a difference tho.