Intel Hyper Threading, Do Gamers Need It?

Intel Hyper Threading, Do Gamers Need It?


Compares 1060, 1070, and Titan XP pascal GPU's with HT enabled / disabled on a 6700K.

Also shows 6700K, 6700, 6600K, and other CPU's difference in games.

 

God wish I saw this video when someone was insisting a 6600k + 1080 was worse than a 6700k + 1070 because of hyperthreading smh.

 

When CPU bound and in DX12 its going to help a lot more. So it totally depends on your resolution(lower resolutions are more cpu bound) and power of your graphics card(more powerful GPU more CPU bound). HT will be more important in games in DX12 especially with lower power cpu's with less single thread performance.

 

It would be nice to see some game benchmark runs as in this video to back up your musings.

Keep an eye out like I did to backup what I have been saying for a long long time.

It's nice to have the description, and then see it immediately in action.

 

It's something I have been saying for a long time, and there are other videos I've posted showing HT isn't really helpful for most games, but this one did it a bit better than the others.

It would have been nice if they included a 1080 to narrow down the range at which some games respond to more cores with higher power GPU's

The CPU HT improvement will go away at higher resolutions - 1440p and 2160p, I've indeed posted video's that show this.

They should have run 1440p and 2160p to show the benefit of more cores goes down again as resolution goes up.

If you are running G-sync @ 60hz/75hz, even 100hz, there is less benefit as well. It's only when you get into the higher FPS @1080 that more than 4 cores help.

The HT cores aren't as helpful as full cores, for most operations 12% gain is what you see, sometimes more, but the trade off is for more power / heat generation with HT on.

All fun stuff

 

When CPU bound and in DX12 its going to help a lot more. So it totally depends on your resolution(lower resolutions are more cpu bound) and power of your graphics card(more powerful GPU more CPU bound). HT will be more important in games in DX12 especially with lower power cpu's with less single thread performance.[/QUOTE]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016...l_cpu_scaling_gaming_framerate/5#.WC1m7RszWpo



EDIT I'm not saying a 6600k is a low single performce cpu. It's more than powerfull enough in todays games in DX11 and DX12 just saying in the future under DX12 in cpu bottlenecked conditions the lack of Hyper-Threading will eventually hurt it.

 

I'm one of the ones that thinks i7-6700K is better than i5-6600K for gaming, but I will say that this is only because I'm doing a PC build with a 144Hz monitor - he himself in the vid explains that i7-6700K is worthwhile for 144Hz monitors (at the end of the vid). I opted for i7-6700K + GTX 1070 rather than 6600K +1080 - I'll be turning down GPU hungry settings in some games to achieve 144fps, and the 6600K could struggle in some games with 144fps (especially in the future), and I know I'll be upgrading my GPU in the generations to come anyway so 6700K is more future proof - GTX 1080 is just not good value when compared to 1070, only a bit less than 20% more GPU performance.

 

It would be fun, once you get it all set up and tuned for high FPS on the fully enabled 6700K, to then boot on disabled HT to see if there is a difference, and how large of a difference it is.

I usually turn off HT on desktop CPU's, unless I am benchmarking in things that HT helps. Not for gaming.

 

It depends what games I would play. The current ones I'm playing won't tax the CPU enough to make a difference, having said that F1 2015 is one that showed differences in the vid if I'm aiming for 144fps. I might try it to see what difference it makes once I've got the build done. I also can't go with a 4 thread PC after having an 8 thread laptop for the past 4 yrs, it's a down grade psychologically! No, but GTX 1080 is not worth it over GTX 1070 when I'm comitting to upgrade to future generations of GPU anyway, performance difference between the GPUs doesn't justify the cost difference - and then I'd be stuck with an i5 with the hope that it wouldn't bottleneck future generations of GPU at 144Hz - really not guaranteed!

 

Yeah, the 1080ti is the anticipated sweet spot, no sense blowing $ on the 1080 / Titan X(P) today.

The i5 option is only has one potential mode, realizing you have the option to disable HT on the i7 is just as important, maybe more so.

In a laptop the i5 makes more sense to me than a desktop, but it's mostly the same in either, although I am more likely to want to keep the heat down in the laptop and need top performance less often.

If I had to purchase lots of laptops or desktops to fill a need, I would look carefully at each component to make sure it's actually necessary.

In a personal machine, especially a main machine it's a different view - more options = more options.

 

I won't be upgrading from a 1070 to a 1080ti, I'd be upgrading the 1070 to Volta (or maybe even the following generation). GTX 1080ti wouldn't be the sweet spot for performance per dollar, and definitely not with a 1080p monitor.

EDIT: if desktops weren't upgradeable from generation to generation then I'd buy an i5-6600K + GTX 1080 combo rather than the i7-6700K + GTX 1070 combo.

 

Too long to wait for Volta, plus we don't even know what process it will end up on, which changes it's performance potential quite a bit.

A 1080ti might be almost 2x a 1070, but much cheaper than the Titan XP.



It's a long time till the 1180ti comes out...

It might be more fun to be on the 1080ti / 1180ti cycle instead of the 1070 / 1170 cycle

 

You make a good point about being on cycles like 1070/1170 - that's a good way of looking at it, and also how I look at it. 1080ti/1180ti cycle is a lot more expensive than 1070/1170 cycle, and at 1080p 144Hz I think the 1070/1170 cycle is a good match, especially seeing as in games where I really need 144fps then I would happily turn down GPU hungry details that don't add much to the experience - especially in fast online games where movement is too fast to admire the scenery anyway! Remember I have the goodness of Gsync for satisfying 60fps gaming or even sub 60fps gaming for slower paced games. For all those reasons that's why I've chosen the 1070/1170 cycle combined with 6700K vs a more expensive GPU cycle of 1080/1180 or 1080ti/1180ti.

 

For some reason heat and power aren't ever considerations when I buy computers as long as there not over heating. Maybe because I live in Canada and Its always cold here. My computer doubles as a space heater.

Yes going from 8 to 4 threads sure would hurt the EPEEN... /S

Only computer junkies like us would consider the 1080ti the sweet spot.

 

It's all about patience and waiting for things to come around when they are ready to be harvested.

I like waiting for the Red Bell Pepper's myself

 

Haha, that's some weird similes we're drawing now, but my GTX 1070 feels like a juicy high Vit C containing Red Pepper! (especially coming from my 900p laptop gaming combined with GPU equivalent power of just above a desktop GTX 660!) haha

And to get thread back on topic, 8 threads add to the juiciness, especially future juiciness! I got my Vitamins!

 

It's not just the heat generated by HT, it's also the power drawn by HT "cores" that takes away potential headroom from the 4 main cores for OC.

I can usually get another 100-300mhz+ OC by turning off HT.

A nice performance bump for dropping "useless" pseudo cores.

It depends on how Nvidia prices the 1080ti... and how much benchmarks show it outperforms the 1080, and how close it gets to the Titan X(P).

 

Interesting, but I'm still sold on my i7 purchase. (I don't have any further thoughts on the 1070/1080/1080ti conversation.)

 

An i7 is definitely better for gaming at least a little thats for sure. And you made a smart long term decision.

But even for 144Hz a 1080 and i5 is better. The extra power of the gpu pushes more frames than the i7 over i5. I did quite a bit of testing on this. But thats a more short term set up anyway.

 

To tell you the truth I didn't even think of that XD. I'm not trying to push my desktop to the max OC anyway but I'll definatly keep that in mind for laptop use!

 

That's right, I was thinking long term.

 

Yup, if your keeping your rig for a few years, an i7 is a better choice! HT will play a bigger role with DX12 etc too..

 

Battlefield 1 is the most recent game to show the i7 is the better choice going forward. i5 get destroyed in that game and gamers using high refresh rate monitors are trading up to the i7 for that game alone.

 

i5-6600K user here. I see occasional dips to 40-50s when there's a ton of explosions and 20+ players are in a tight space. 64-man operations is insanely taxing on the CPU.

Looking forward to the i7-7700K when Kaby Lake comes out

 

Microcenter has the 6700K on sale for $269.00

I almost went and got one this weekend simply to play the silicon lottery and see if I can't get a chip that uses lower voltage at stock. Although I think I have a pretty decent chip already.

 

I thought about it, but Kaby Lake is so close, I might as well see what it offers. Besides, AMD might pull a miracle and you know, actually compete, and force Intel to lower prices.

 

Most Skylake CPU's can run much lower voltage than stock, at least 100mV that I've found.

 

Hey you never know about AMD... Zen does look promising.. But then again look at Polaris... It promised quite a bit and is around 1060 level of performance... Still waiting for Vega to materialise!

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

AMD is at a point of "prove it" to me. They've been a lot of hype and no performance over the last three to four years.

 

Welp. Kaby Lake is a disappointment. I was really hoping for thermal or power efficiency gains, but turns out it's basically an overclocked Skylake.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...00k-overclocking-performance-review,4836.html

 

Haha how surprising! Well only thing that will make Intel stop resting on their laurels is AMD Zen stomping all over this (which it looks like it will).. We'll find out in next 1-2 months!

 

I hope so. I really hope AMD delivers this time. Zen is looking good from what I've been seeing reported. I'm hoping AMD has a great year. Their stock is way up and I wish I had bought it early this year. Investors probably know a lot more than we do and I'm anticipating good things.

 

I remain at my default state of cautious optimism.

 

If the leaks have any truth behind it, Intel are in trouble, that's one thing for sure! That demo against Broadwell E, clock for clock, it got beaten!

 

Concerning IPC, I think AMD will meet expectations. However, their main weakness will be clock rates. Every single "leak" so far has suggested that Zen has runs at low frequencies, around 3.5 GHz. They are mainly targeted at server-grade CPUs which run at similarly low frequencies. For gamers, I think this will not be well received as most games respond better to high frequencies than threads. I think in the upcoming Zen demo, we won't see gaming comparisons to the 6700K, as Zen probably loses... but that's OK as long as pricing is right. Anything to light a fire under Intel is good.

 

I hope so, Intel need some competition.

 

Especially since it doesn't really look like kaby lake is as much of an improvement over skylake as it initially sounded like.

 

The big problem Tanner IMO is that the iGPU takes up more and more space and performance for it each gen improves 40-50%... They really need to reduce its size and focus that space on CPU stuff... But will Intel do that? No, will make X99 kind of pointless for most people then wouldn't it?

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

Trying to keep up with display resolution probably with the graphics, but I agree, with most systems being able to have a discrete GPU a focus on CPU power would not be unwelcome.

 

I think there is very slight difference for gaming, I wouldn't waste another 100$ just to make sure my CPU is on top of hyperthreading support

 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-975-950_7.html#sect0

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/enable-ht-vs-disable-ht.145737/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/384300/discussions/0/530646080862961117/

Some interesting reads about how turning off HT of actually helped FPS and perceived smoothness at least on older CPU's/Games like the first core series Nehalem. The first one I posted has actual benchmarks comparing HT on/off. There is quite the differing opinions on this it seems. And like I said previously in this thread IMO having more threads will be more important in the long run with api's like vulkan and DX12.

\/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016...l_cpu_scaling_gaming_framerate/5#.WC1m7RszWpo

 

Some people really like to have spent more money than their friend, then work backwards to convince themselves it was a good buy.

 

That assumes "some people" have friends or "some people"'s friends care/know about what is in "some people"'s system.... ;D

 

You'd be surprised. The "Sure I'll use all this horsepower on the street" and "I need this lift kit in case I mount a curb someday" and "There's still a couple of places I can fit mods on this AR-15" type of mentality is alive and well in the PC industry. Not that I'm complaining or anything, as long as there's a market for it, manufacturers will continue to make cool stuff to sell to it.

 

Kaby Lake Pentium processors get Hyper-Threading
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/kaby-lake-pentium-processors-get-hyper-threading.html

"A user called J_C_W from our colleagues in the Dutch HWI forums noticed the HT enabled Pentiums on the Intel ARK. The models with Hyper-threading would be the:

• Pentium G4560
• Pentium G4560T
• Pentium G4600
• Pentium G4600T
• Pentium G4620.

Historically the last generations Pentium processors only had two cores, and never ever had hyper-threading enabled. This new feature will make the 60 euro processors behave and likely perform at Core i3 level performance. The one thing the Pentium will not support is the AVX2 instruction set, which mainly is handy and very fast with video edition/transcoding. It might be a terrific processor for a low cost net-PC.

The HT enablement has been verified with Intel. It is not a typo in the ARK processor database."

 

Perhaps Intel knows more than we do? Use of HT in games?(will be more important)

 

For gaming 2 core, less than "4 core", is already a problem for some games.

HT doesn't take you all the way there, but it might be enough to fool software that disables itself when found running on 2 core CPU's.

 

I've seen multiple examples where HT massively improves framerate where only 2 physical CPU cores exist: e.g. comparison between previous Pentiums and i3's which have the HT. i3 with HT benefits massively from HT. HT FTW!! I think HT helps even if you have 4 physical cores in some games, and my understanding is that DX12 is more multi thread aware than DX11, so HT again. I say if you can afford HT - get HT!

 

Not the ideal solution but good enough for many situations.

 

Yep, that's why I got an i7 rather than an i5, four physical cores combined with 4 HT cores is I think enough for a long time in terms of gaming - whereas I think 4 cores alone without HT will not be that future proof for future GPU upgrades / games.