Intel now offering hyperthreaded Pentium CPUs!

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

yes, I'll go on a acid trip too 

No need to dismiss the idea so quickly, but it's not like I think they should make a 3 core since you might as well not disable a core on a quad core chip. AMD having done that was frankly dumb.

 

Should Intel have CPUs with HT disabled, no since they specifically have to disable it.

Should Intel still be selling 2 core CPUs, no.

[Energycore]

Just now, leadeater said:

No need to dismiss the idea so quickly, but it's not like I think they should make a 3 core since you might as well not disable a core on a quad core chip. AMD having done that was frankly dumb.

 

Should Intel have CPUs with HT disabled, no since they specifically have to disable it.

Should Intel still be selling 2 core CPUs, no.

I see you're trying to reason with Zmeul again

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, porina said:

Maybe, but it isn't alone. I don't have the exact values to hand, but Cinebench was over 30% in similar situation. Put it another way, if it didn't give any advantage, there wouldn't be much point to having it. Competitive benchmarkers will also go for the HT model too, as it generally gives some advantage in many benchmarks.

 

I've not come across the 20% value attributed to Intel being thrown around here. I'd guess they may be indicating an average, but specific cases can be far above or below that. I know of tasks where the benefit is approximately zero also...

The 20% value primarily comes from user experience+benchmarks. Early on with the Pentium 4 most of the time with HT you got only around 10% extra performance, with anything from the Core i series leaning more towards a 20% improvement per core (also proven with my 4790K's multi threaded scaling at around x4.8)

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

I see you're trying to reason with Zmeul again

 good point. Keep forgetting people take a theoretical example and instantly take it to a practical extreme.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

That's what you get with no competition. Dual core i3s for over $200.

 

Ryzen should (and will) change that.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117622

 

I think you need to find a better shop. Or specify your currency.

[porina]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

The 20% value primarily comes from user experience+benchmarks. Early on with the Pentium 4 most of the time with HT you got only around 10% extra performance, with anything from the Core i series leaning more towards a 20% improvement per core (also proven with my 4790K's multi threaded scaling at around x4.8)

The first time I saw 50% boost from HT was on P4s. It was a now defunct distributed computing project called LifeMapper.

 

I've looked back at my notes on the Cinebench boost from HT.

For Skylake, I saw 28 to 31% boost.

For Haswell, I saw 28 to 33% boost.

 

Beware the thread scaling can be distorted by turbo speeds if variable per active cores. For a better test of HT, you would have to make sure the same clocks were used.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Obligatory explanation of HyperThreading because stuff

It helps to first understand the basics of CPU architecture. Most CPUs having the following:

• Instruction fetcher
• Instruction decoder
• Registers to hold immediately pertinent data
• Execution units, such as an arithmetic and logic unit (ALU), floating point unit (FPU), or address generation unit (AGU)
• Some sort of memory interface

What HyperThreading does is duplicates the registers so that there are two sets of them. When the CPU is working on a thread, its context, or current execution state, is stored in these registers. When a thread does not use all of the execution resources, as there are multiples of them due to Intel's use of superscalar pipelining (or executing more than on instruction at a time in the same thread), the processor sees if the other thread's context can run using those unused execution resources.

 

HyperThreading is mostly a system software (i.e., the OS) problem when it comes to hurting performance. If the system is not aware that the two logical cores are logical and not physical, it may attempt to schedule things as if they had the full execution resources. This can lead two threads being scheduled on the same physical core, leading to degraded performance.

 

As a reminder: the smallest unit of scheduling is a thread. The OS does not care what process (or program) that thread belongs to.

[SteveGrabowski0]

57 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

It's a general statement towards people overestimating the impact of HT or specific pentium to i3 related.

GTA V on very high settings runs night and day better on dual core with HT vs straight up dual core. When I tested this with my Xeon E3-1231v3 by disabling two cores and testing with and without hyperthreading (matched with a GTX 970 at 1080p) the game was flat out unplayable w/o HT at 3.8 GHz. E.g. lots of drops into the 20s, with the framerate barely ever above 40 even. While with HT to simulate a 3.8 GHz i3 it was really smooth, mostly around 60-70 fps with the worst drops to around 50 fps (with all four cores and HT on it's usually around 85 fps or so).

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

47 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

GTA V on very high settings runs night and day better on dual core with HT vs straight up dual core. When I tested this with my Xeon E3-1231v3 by disabling two cores and testing with and without hyperthreading (matched with a GTX 970 at 1080p) the game was flat out unplayable w/o HT at 3.8 GHz. E.g. lots of drops into the 20s, with the framerate barely ever above 40 even. While with HT to simulate a 3.8 GHz i3 it was really smooth, mostly around 60-70 fps with the worst drops to around 50 fps (with all four cores and HT on it's usually around 85 fps or so).

This makes me wonder what GTAV is doing because if you're really using those cores, the other threads won't have much execution resources to use.

 

That to me would sound like GTAV has some really odd coding choices.

[vorticalbox]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

Will the cpu fans have RGB more importantly will the cpu itself have RGB?

Let 2017 be the year of RGB

[SteveGrabowski0]

17 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

This makes me wonder what GTAV is doing because if you're really using those cores, the other threads won't have much execution resources to use.

 

That to me would sound like GTAV has some really odd coding choices.

It performed a lot like other games I played with my real G3258 at 4.4 GHz: a framerate and gpu usage (with my 970) that was always oscillating wildly in an almost periodic manner. I saw it on Tomb Raider 2013, where the second stage was horrible on my G3258. I saw it on Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor. Meanwhile i3 have been shown to be pretty reasonable gaming cpus in most cases in Digital Foundry's videos where they show instantaneous frametimes and such (and the G3258 looks horrible in their tests). GTA V didn't seem like an outlier at all for how it performed on dual core w/o hyperthreading based on my results with my Pentium. It was a horrible gaming cpu (though it's great in my HTPC now, especially with emulators).

[ZackBarletto]

It may be minor instruction set differences or something. All i can think of is maybe integrated graphics..

If they decide to step up the on board graphics a little further, I can see i3's getting a bump and the Pentiums being a little slower, and bare minimal Integrated graphics.

 

Still no reason I can think of if your going budget build.

 

Love to LTT and the Community!

[Misanthrope]

OMG! Will you guys just fucking stop using 2 cores 4 threads for gaming!!?? Come on gaming (and by that I mean GTA V, BF1 and nothing else, certainly not thousands upon thousands of games made in 2015 and back) needs 4 cores 8 threads on a 7700k only and if you don't achieve 5.0ghz overclock you might as well go play with rocks instead and leave PC gaming because you can't possibly be enjoying yourself on a sensible fucking budget! USE MORE CPU!!!! MOOOOOOOOOREEEEEE!!!!!!

[AceTaker]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

OMG! Will you guys just fucking stop using 2 cores 4 threads for gaming!!?? Come on gaming (and by that I mean GTA V, BF1 and nothing else, certainly not thousands upon thousands of games made in 2015 and back) needs 4 cores 8 threads on a 7700k only and if you don't achieve 5.0ghz overclock you might as well go play with rocks instead and leave PC gaming because you can't possibly be enjoying yourself on a sensible fucking budget! USE MORE CPU!!!! MOOOOOOOOOREEEEEE!!!!!!

Lol, is that sarcasm I hear? Look up GTA V running on a G4400. Imagine that with hyper-threading.. If you are joking of course, then just ignore this. (My G4400 + RX 460 beats my brothers FX-8320 and R9 270 in Fallout 4 BTW..)

[NumLock21]

Sometimes I wonder is Intel's ARK even accurate. Pentium don't have AVX okay fine. Core i3 on the other hand, 2 of them only has AVX, but they have Turbo Boost support. Problem is, stock clocks are boost clocks are exactly the same. The rest have AVX 2.0, they do not support Turbo Boost. Skylake Pentium supports ECC and Kaby Lakes ones does not.  So no i3 like cpu for sub $100 with ECC support, for a budget home server build.

[captain cactus]

7 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117622

 

I think you need to find a better shop. Or specify your currency.

Euros. An i3-6320 goes for around €170 which is like $180 bucks. 

 

Pretty close to $200 if you ask me.

[Prysin]

12 hours ago, Aereldor said:

These things don't appear to perform on par with i3s, though. I can't figure out why. So far, very few benchmarks have been released. Hopefully, Digital Foundry will have a few soon.

they perform worse then I3s due to smaller cache, no turbo, no support for AVX and some other instruction sets among other things.

[Prysin]

also, i dont see much value in a HT Pentium. Not at these prices and performance levels. Even for HTPC they arent that great value IMO. Maybe for a compact home-made NAS?

[porina]

9 hours ago, ONOTech said:

Actually very interesting. An i7, for all intents and purposes, is an i5 with HT. That means you pay roughly a 40% premium for a 30% performance boost (Skylake). I'm guessing the missing 10% would be the extra Hz added to the clock speed?

The numbers I gave only applied to my testing with Cinebench. It can and will vary depending on the load. Also i7s have bigger L3 cache than i5s.

47 minutes ago, Prysin said:

also, i dont see much value in a HT Pentium. Not at these prices and performance levels. Even for HTPC they arent that great value IMO. Maybe for a compact home-made NAS?

I do have Celerons/Pentiums, but didn't buy them separately. They seem to be used in low end servers where they have ECC support (but newer CPUs don't?), and the server isn't CPU dependant where they would have to go up to Xeon in that case. I also see them in lower cost pre-built desktops, although who buys those is anther question.

[Prysin]

26 minutes ago, porina said:

The numbers I gave only applied to my testing with Cinebench. It can and will vary depending on the load. Also i7s have bigger L3 cache than i5s.

I do have Celerons/Pentiums, but didn't buy them separately. They seem to be used in low end servers where they have ECC support (but newer CPUs don't?), and the server isn't CPU dependant where they would have to go up to Xeon in that case. I also see them in lower cost pre-built desktops, although who buys those is anther question.

A pentium is fine for MOBAs or CS GO

[Aereldor]

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

they perform worse then I3s due to smaller cache, no turbo

That's not true. Here's why-

 

i3s don't have turbo boost. I don't know where people get the bizarre idea that they do. Also, this chip has 3MB of level 3 cache- the same amount as a Core i3 6100.

• Core i3 6100- No turbo boost, 3MB Cache, 3.7 GHz: http://ark.intel.com/products/90729/Intel-Core-i3-6100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_70-GHz
• Pentium G4560- No turbo boost, 3MB Cache, 3.5 GHz: https://ark.intel.com/products/97143/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4560-3M-Cache-3_50-GHz

 

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

no support for AVX and some other instruction sets among other things.

Does AVX, a few instruction sets, and some 'other things, make that much of a difference? Because these chips are identical in all other aspects besides clock speed,l and are only 200 MHz apart there.

[Aereldor]

@Prysin, @Energycore, and basically everyone else on this thread; benchmarks are out. The other hyperthreaded Pentium (the Pentium G4620) is faster than the Core i3 6100.

 

 

By comparison, the Pentium G4560 isn't that much slower.

 

[AlTech]

15 hours ago, MyName13 said:

So what makes them different from i3s?

Core i3 has 4MB of L3 cache on certain SKUs.

 

They also have Intel HD Graphics 630 (rather than 610).

 

They have AVX and AVX 2.0 (quite pointless on a CPU that weak anyways).

 

And core i3s are just better binned chips.

[Citadelen]

I don't really see what Intel is doing here from a business perspective, these compete with Intels's own lineup higher up in the form of i3s. All this will do is eat into their profit margins.

[AceTaker]

I think I'll just skip upgrading from a G4400 to a i3, and go with the i5..... I want an actual, better change for my money...