Are intels CPUS with integrated graphics and hyperthreading really a big deal? AMD equivalent?
Tags:
-
AMD
-
CPUs
-
Intel
-
Graphics
Last response: in CPUs
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 6:59:11 PM
I Have been reading up on hyper threading and integrated graphics on Intel cpus and am wondering if its really all its cracked up to be? I know im late to the party on this subject but some clarifacation would be excellent. Currently using an amd fx 6300.
Is it worth the money to upgrade to an intel core w/e processor? Or is there an amd equivalent to the hyper threading/ integrated gpu that intel has. I am willing to spend the money on a good cpu being it intel or amd. I just want to run next gen games flawless.
Is it worth the money to upgrade to an intel core w/e processor? Or is there an amd equivalent to the hyper threading/ integrated gpu that intel has. I am willing to spend the money on a good cpu being it intel or amd. I just want to run next gen games flawless.
More about : intels cpus integrated graphics hyperthreading big deal amd equivalent
-
Reply to nickspc4116
bigwoofer
February 11, 2014 7:03:01 PM
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
-
Reply to bigwoofer
m
0
l
Related resources
- Is amd's mantle really a big deal? - Forum
- would memory speed makes a big differences in gaming in the AMD A series card if i am not using their integrated graphics? - Forum
- Intel CPUs with integrated graphics? - Forum
- Why are Intel and AMD both so obsessed with integrated graphics? - Forum
- Integrated graphics/video on AMD Phenom II vs. Intel i5 - Forum
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 7:07:49 PM
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
Thanks for the response. I appreciate the graph and will study it further.
-
Reply to nickspc4116
m
0
l
Well theres more to higher performance that just CPU. You also want to look at GPUs.
Now about the question, guess I'll piece this one out to make it easier to understand.
HyperThreading: While sort of a big deal, it doesn't replace actual cores, its just not strong enough. Most games don't use it, and its only really useful on highly threaded applications or doing things that can be offloaded to some lower performing cores without impact. Highly threaded applications would be things like video editing and photoshop. Things that can be offloaded without impact are say huge number of smaller applications where core count is better than just faster cores, like loads of chrome tabs, while not very demanding, if you have only two cores instead of 2c + 2t theres a noticeable impact in performance.
Now Integrated GPUs.... Well, AMDs APUs(Basically just a CPU with a good GPU on it) have better IGP (Integrated Graphic processor) than any other CPUs out right now. However, for any serious gaming (IE anything above low/medium settings) you would be massively better off just spending a hundred bucks on a 7750/7770/650ti/etc
But for a cheap laptop to do some cheap gaming, the APUs make loads of sense. Assuming you can't afford something higher end, or you just game occasionally.
As for if its worth it to upgrade... Hmm probably not, the FX6300 is still a good CPU and is still very capable. Spending the money on a GPU might be better, though I don't know what gpu you are running so...
Now about the question, guess I'll piece this one out to make it easier to understand.
HyperThreading: While sort of a big deal, it doesn't replace actual cores, its just not strong enough. Most games don't use it, and its only really useful on highly threaded applications or doing things that can be offloaded to some lower performing cores without impact. Highly threaded applications would be things like video editing and photoshop. Things that can be offloaded without impact are say huge number of smaller applications where core count is better than just faster cores, like loads of chrome tabs, while not very demanding, if you have only two cores instead of 2c + 2t theres a noticeable impact in performance.
Now Integrated GPUs.... Well, AMDs APUs(Basically just a CPU with a good GPU on it) have better IGP (Integrated Graphic processor) than any other CPUs out right now. However, for any serious gaming (IE anything above low/medium settings) you would be massively better off just spending a hundred bucks on a 7750/7770/650ti/etc
But for a cheap laptop to do some cheap gaming, the APUs make loads of sense. Assuming you can't afford something higher end, or you just game occasionally.
As for if its worth it to upgrade... Hmm probably not, the FX6300 is still a good CPU and is still very capable. Spending the money on a GPU might be better, though I don't know what gpu you are running so...
-
Reply to mouse24
m
0
l
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 7:26:49 PM
mouse24 said:
Well theres more to higher performance that just CPU. You also want to look at GPUs.Now about the question, guess I'll piece this one out to make it easier to understand.
HyperThreading: While sort of a big deal, it doesn't replace actual cores, its just not strong enough. Most games don't use it, and its only really useful on highly threaded applications or doing things that can be offloaded to some lower performing cores without impact. Highly threaded applications would be things like video editing and photoshop. Things that can be offloaded without impact are say huge number of smaller applications where core count is better than just faster cores, like loads of chrome tabs, while not very demanding, if you have only two cores instead of 2c + 2t theres a noticeable impact in performance.
Now Integrated GPUs.... Well, AMDs APUs(Basically just a CPU with a good GPU on it) have better IGP (Integrated Graphic processor) than any other CPUs out right now. However, for any serious gaming (IE anything above low/medium settings) you would be massively better off just spending a hundred bucks on a 7750/7770/650ti/etc
But for a cheap laptop to do some cheap gaming, the APUs make loads of sense. Assuming you can't afford something higher end, or you just game occasionally.
As for if its worth it to upgrade... Hmm probably not, the FX6300 is still a good CPU and is still very capable. Spending the money on a GPU might be better, though I don't know what gpu you are running so...
Thanks for the reply, mouse. Here is my setup.
-Asus m5a97 le r2.0 mobo
-16gb 2133 mhz G.skill Ripjawz ram
-MSI gtx 760 gaming edition
-Cooler master exteme psu 700 watt
-and ofc the amd fx 6300 processor
I am running all my games aside from ac4 black flag on maximum settings on 1920x1080 res.( i know this is a very demanding game). Im aiming to kill that game in fps hence the post.
-
Reply to nickspc4116
m
0
l
bigwoofer
February 11, 2014 7:26:55 PM
CTurbo said:
All integrated graphics are relatively weak. AMD's igpus are much stronger, but still only suitable for low budget gaming. Hyperthreading is not very useful in gaming at this time, but it does help a lot in rendering, number crunching, and multitasking in general. Please keep in mind onboard video, even from Intel these days is LIGHT YEARS better than 4 years ago, and have significantly closed the gap in laptop-desktop performance.
AMD and nVidia are closing the gap between desktop and laptop components too. These onboard video cards are not the 2d-graphics-only components they used to be, offering 3D as a checkmark. I played WoT at about 35fps on an intel i3 with a 3000 chip, and had a good time
-
Reply to bigwoofer
m
0
l
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 7:27:57 PM
bigwoofer
February 11, 2014 7:30:19 PM
Hyperthreading: Not a separate core, but the operating system sees it as a separate core and can use it as one thanks to wasted resources otherwise. In short: True cores are faster. 4 true cores tend to be faster than 2 true cores hyperthreaded into 2 true/2 hyperthread cores. Which brings me to 4 true cores with hyperthreading: 4 true cores, with hyperthreading, tends to be faster with multi-core processing than 4 cores.
-
Reply to bigwoofer
m
0
l
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 7:40:38 PM
CTurbo said:
So are you having performance issues OP?Apart of me says no and that im just expecting too much out of my current set up, but on the other hand when i play somegames it just doesnt feel stable. FPS will just go everywhere. Example. Ill be playing bf4 on ultra w/ 4xmsaa 1920 x 1080 and it will be 60fps for a few seconds the drop to 30 then jump to 70. I just dont know really what to expect from my system i dont know what kind of performance i should be getting.
Another thing. My friend and i just built him a pc using a intel core i5 650 and i gave him my old 7770 1gb which was a huge upgrade for him. When i watch him play games it seems much more stable than mine in terms of holding fps at a solid 60 fps. Is this just how things are? Or should my system be much more stable? I know this isnt the best of examples but any feedback is much appreciated. Sorry if i veer off the current subject.
-
Reply to nickspc4116
m
0
l
nickspc4116 said:
CTurbo said:
So are you having performance issues OP?Apart of me says no and that im just expecting too much out of my current set up, but on the other hand when i play somegames it just doesnt feel stable. FPS will just go everywhere. Example. Ill be playing bf4 on ultra w/ 4xmsaa 1920 x 1080 and it will be 60fps for a few seconds the drop to 30 then jump to 70. I just dont know really what to expect from my system i dont know what kind of performance i should be getting.
Another thing. My friend and i just built him a pc using a intel core i5 650 and i gave him my old 7770 1gb which was a huge upgrade for him. When i watch him play games it seems much more stable than mine in terms of holding fps at a solid 60 fps. Is this just how things are? Or should my system be much more stable? I know this isnt the best of examples but any feedback is much appreciated. Sorry if i veer off the current subject.
Your CPU is better than an i5 650 and only the dual core i5s have hyperthreading.
-
Reply to tcb1005
m
0
l
nickspc4116
February 11, 2014 7:47:55 PM
Hyperthreading simply presents a single core as two logical cores to the operating system. The actual facilities that execute instructions are shared. The only things that the logical cores duplicate are the ones that hold the states of the instructions. So two instruction streams keep taking turns to execute on a single physical core. Intel claims that this helps to optimize the scheduling of the instructions and you gain some 10-30% in performance over CPU without hyperthreading. 30% figure and probably the best case scenario. The real life gains are much smaller and you need many threads in software to take advantage of this feature. This is why the gaming CPU selection guide at tom's hardware does not really recommend anything beyond an unlocked Core i5 (four cores, no hyperthreading). Sure, if you have some spare coin, then Core i7 (same four cores, with hyperthreading) is better under heavy multi-threaded loads, but performance gain compared to price is tiny. Note that AMD's CPU are built on modules, each with two logical cores, but they share a lot of parts of the same module, like the FPU, so AMD cores are not really fully fledged cores in the normal sense.
However, in the end, yes Intel CPUs are better than AMD on the top end. By this I mean, AMD as little to respond with to the Intel Core i7. Having said this, I don't see a huge difference between Intel and AMD in areas where they compete with each other in price ($200 or lower). The Core i5 and FX 8350 are somemewhere on the same level of performance, give or take, and this is why they're priced so close. Likewise, the CPU portion of AMD APUs are somewhere near the performance of Core i3, and this is why they're priced so close. In the end, there is no free lunch IMHO.
All in all, the performance of each individual core of AMD CPUs is below that of the Intel Core CPUs. AMD responds to this by offering more cores. If you run an heavily threaded application, then it can catch up with a similarly priced Intel Core CPU, and maybe elbow a little past it. If you need single threaded performance, then Intel Core will be faster.
The AMD APUs do have a little advantage over the latest of Intel's HD Graphics in terms of built in GPU performance, but the performance of the built in GPU is still so slow that APUs are a good replacement only for extremely cheap and outdated graphics cards. The $100 dollar Radeon 7750 and 7770 are still much faster.
However, in the end, yes Intel CPUs are better than AMD on the top end. By this I mean, AMD as little to respond with to the Intel Core i7. Having said this, I don't see a huge difference between Intel and AMD in areas where they compete with each other in price ($200 or lower). The Core i5 and FX 8350 are somemewhere on the same level of performance, give or take, and this is why they're priced so close. Likewise, the CPU portion of AMD APUs are somewhere near the performance of Core i3, and this is why they're priced so close. In the end, there is no free lunch IMHO.
All in all, the performance of each individual core of AMD CPUs is below that of the Intel Core CPUs. AMD responds to this by offering more cores. If you run an heavily threaded application, then it can catch up with a similarly priced Intel Core CPU, and maybe elbow a little past it. If you need single threaded performance, then Intel Core will be faster.
The AMD APUs do have a little advantage over the latest of Intel's HD Graphics in terms of built in GPU performance, but the performance of the built in GPU is still so slow that APUs are a good replacement only for extremely cheap and outdated graphics cards. The $100 dollar Radeon 7750 and 7770 are still much faster.
-
Reply to jacobian
m
0
l
kylerjobe
February 11, 2014 8:17:45 PM
nickspc4116 said:
CTurbo said:
You system should be way stronger. It sounds like your friend is playing @ 720p.I know right? But hes not. Hes running the same res as me. Maybe there is a bottleneck with my system?
Your processor might be the bottleneck, but I can't say for sure. Adding a second 760 would only increase the instability of your computer. I would stay away from SLI until you get your single card to give you a constant fps. If that constant is too low, you can consider adding a second GPU. In order to get that first card to be constant, you might need a different processor. an i5 4670 or 4670k is essentially the maximum performance CPU (for gaming) that you can get. It's only 200 and some dollars too!
The 4670 does not have HyperThreading, so it is going to act like nothing more than a 4 core, but all four of those real cores are better than any AMD core. HyperThreading will not improve your gaming performance unless you are multitasking at the same time by skyping, playing music, or browsing some other page.For this reason, it would probably be an unnecessary upgrade to get an i7 4770(these are the ones with HyperThreading). The Intel i5 4670 might be just what you need to increase the stability of your graphics card, but it is hard to say.
If you really want to run next-gen games at 60+fps no exceptions, then you really need a GTX 780 or higher. Most games do not make use of more than 4 cores (and next-gen games probably won't either) so you really don't need 6, or 4 HyperThreaded cores. 4 cores from intel at 3.5-4.0GHz will prevent your CPU from being the bottleneck of your system for many years.
Sorry for my rambling, but I hope it helps you a little
-
Reply to kylerjobe
m
0
l
Intel or Amd on board graphics is out of the equation. If your a keen gamer who wants to do editing, scripting etc, then you will have to fork out for I7. As it will do both the best. If your a part time gamer who does editing, scripting then i would of thought 6300 (or any vishera option) was enough. If your just a gamer and not much else you can't go past i5/k as an i7/k would be a waste of your money.
I also find it hard to believe that your friend is playing @ 60fps with that hardware (at least at 1080p).
I would of expected the 6300 to game well, however the intel is most likely doing more per clock cycle. Even an i3 can perform better than a 6300 at times. To be the actual cause of a FPS drop with 6300 is not impossible. There could be other variables that set you and your friends system apart. Games are still very much GPU driven(a good cpu can and does add to game performance) and would suspect that is where the issue is.
I also find it hard to believe that your friend is playing @ 60fps with that hardware (at least at 1080p).
I would of expected the 6300 to game well, however the intel is most likely doing more per clock cycle. Even an i3 can perform better than a 6300 at times. To be the actual cause of a FPS drop with 6300 is not impossible. There could be other variables that set you and your friends system apart. Games are still very much GPU driven(a good cpu can and does add to game performance) and would suspect that is where the issue is.
-
Reply to Gee Bee
m
0
l
Romenfousek
February 14, 2014 1:32:09 AM
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
-
Reply to Romenfousek
m
0
l
Romenfousek said:
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
330 dollar price tag on that thing is ridiculous. Its just an overclocked 8350/8320.
I could grab a 4770/4820 for that price. Not saying AMD doesn't have there place, but the 9590 is silly.
I would however argue the 8320 has a place as a viable alternative to the cheaper non overclockable i5s such as my i5 3350p. For pure video encoding use if you can't afford an i7, the 8320 is a no brainer.
-
Reply to mouse24
m
0
l
Romenfousek
February 14, 2014 2:11:35 AM
mouse24 said:
Romenfousek said:
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
330 dollar price tag on that thing is ridiculous. Its just an overclocked 8350/8320.
I could grab a 4770/4820 for that price. Not saying AMD doesn't have there place, but the 9590 is silly.
I would however argue the 8320 has a place as a viable alternative to the cheaper non overclockable i5s such as my i5 3350p. For pure video encoding use if you can't afford an i7, the 8320 is a no brainer.
Yeah 9590 is ridiculous but i'm just reacting on the chart it is completely wrong and misleading. A overclocked 8350 can handle i5/i7
-
Reply to Romenfousek
m
0
l
Romenfousek said:
mouse24 said:
Romenfousek said:
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
330 dollar price tag on that thing is ridiculous. Its just an overclocked 8350/8320.
I could grab a 4770/4820 for that price. Not saying AMD doesn't have there place, but the 9590 is silly.
I would however argue the 8320 has a place as a viable alternative to the cheaper non overclockable i5s such as my i5 3350p. For pure video encoding use if you can't afford an i7, the 8320 is a no brainer.
Yeah 9590 is ridiculous but i'm just reacting on the chart it is completely wrong and misleading. A overclocked 8350 can handle i5/i7
Well it can, on highly threaded games. On older games it still loses out.
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Romenfousek
February 14, 2014 2:26:33 AM
RobCrezz said:
Romenfousek said:
mouse24 said:
Romenfousek said:
bigwoofer said:
Depends on what you want to do. For example, if gaming, here is a BEAUTIFUL chart right here on Tom's Hardware:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Read that. If you're trying to to graphic computing, etc, just want to show you the kind of chart you're looking for.
I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
330 dollar price tag on that thing is ridiculous. Its just an overclocked 8350/8320.
I could grab a 4770/4820 for that price. Not saying AMD doesn't have there place, but the 9590 is silly.
I would however argue the 8320 has a place as a viable alternative to the cheaper non overclockable i5s such as my i5 3350p. For pure video encoding use if you can't afford an i7, the 8320 is a no brainer.
Yeah 9590 is ridiculous but i'm just reacting on the chart it is completely wrong and misleading. A overclocked 8350 can handle i5/i7
Well it can, on highly threaded games. On older games it still loses out.
Yeah, but the thing is that older game is no point to have 250 fps instead of 190. Well a lot of people still have 60hz monitor (me too) and more than 60 fps is waste. So for old games = i5. For the newest tech i7/fx-83x0. In 2-3 years games will be most likely use more than 6 cores then i5 fall off
-
Reply to Romenfousek
m
0
l
Hyper Threading basically has no effect on game performance since games do not use Hyper Threading. However... (there always seems to be a "however")... When comparing a dual core Pentium CPU to a dual core Core i3 of the same CPU generation, the Core i3 does in fact provide better performance.
The main difference between the Pentium and the Core i3 is Hyper Threading. It would seems that Windows uses Hyper Threading for the background processes while games use the actual cores. Many different game benchmarks have shown a decent enough performance difference between to CPUs. However, when there are 4 cores, then Hyper Threading more or less does not make a difference. That's why when people are looking at an Intel CPU for a gaming rig the recommended CPU is a Core i5, not the more expensive Core i7.
The main difference between the Pentium and the Core i3 is Hyper Threading. It would seems that Windows uses Hyper Threading for the background processes while games use the actual cores. Many different game benchmarks have shown a decent enough performance difference between to CPUs. However, when there are 4 cores, then Hyper Threading more or less does not make a difference. That's why when people are looking at an Intel CPU for a gaming rig the recommended CPU is a Core i5, not the more expensive Core i7.
-
Reply to jaguarskx
m
0
l
jaguarskx said:
Hyper Threading basically has no effect on game performance since games do not use Hyper Threading. However... (there always seems to be a "however")... When comparing a dual core Pentium CPU to a dual core Core i3 of the same CPU generation, the Core i3 does in fact provide better performance.The main difference between the Pentium and the Core i3 is Hyper Threading. It would seems that Windows uses Hyper Threading for the background processes while games use the actual cores. Many different game benchmarks have shown a decent enough performance difference between to CPUs. However, when there are 4 cores, then Hyper Threading more or less does not make a difference. That's why when people are looking at an Intel CPU for a gaming rig the recommended CPU is a Core i5, not the more expensive Core i7.
Thats incorrect. Games can and do use Hyperthreading.
The benefit from HT on a dual core is apparent if the game is designed for 4 threads. Its just less apparent on Quads with HT because most havent been designed to utilize 8 threads effectively.
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
RobCrezz said:
Thats incorrect. Games can and do use Hyperthreading.
The benefit from HT on a dual core is apparent if the game is designed for 4 threads. Its just less apparent on Quads with HT because most havent been designed to utilize 8 threads effectively.
You'll need to provide me with game benchmarks to back up your statement.
All the benchmarks I have seen have not really shown any difference. The only exception was Battlefield 4 Beta multiplayer mode where a core i7 did in fact perform better than a core i5. However, upon retail release (and much more optimization) the end product showed hardly any difference between the core i5 and core i7.
-
Reply to jaguarskx
m
0
l
jaguarskx said:
RobCrezz said:
Thats incorrect. Games can and do use Hyperthreading.
The benefit from HT on a dual core is apparent if the game is designed for 4 threads. Its just less apparent on Quads with HT because most havent been designed to utilize 8 threads effectively.
You'll need to provide me with game benchmarks to back up your statement.
All the benchmarks I have seen have not really shown any difference. The only exception was Battlefield 4 Beta multiplayer mode where a core i7 did in fact perform better than a core i5. However, upon retail release (and much more optimization) the end product showed hardly any difference between the core i5 and core i7.
You said it your self about the i3 performing better, I just disagree with the assumption that the performance comes from windows background processes utilizing the extra threads (there is no way that would make a significant difference).
Look at the difference between the i3 and the Pentium. I know the i3 has a 300mhz clock advantage, but there is no way it would get that much of a boost just from that, crysis 3 is clearly benefiting from the HT on the i3.

Same you can see here, make a big difference on the i3, practically no difference on the i7 (probably because the game uses 4 threads).
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Huh... okay, I suppose the I have not been "looking at the right game benchmarks" since I don't recall there being anything greater than a 10% performance difference between a Pentium and a Core i3.
However, for a quad core Intel i5 and i7 Hyper Threading really does not make difference at all. I think most people not looking to build a low priced gaming rig with an Intel CPU would be looking at the core i5 / i7 CPUs.
However, for a quad core Intel i5 and i7 Hyper Threading really does not make difference at all. I think most people not looking to build a low priced gaming rig with an Intel CPU would be looking at the core i5 / i7 CPUs.
-
Reply to jaguarskx
m
0
l
jaguarskx said:
Huh... okay, I suppose the I have not been "looking at the right game benchmarks" since I don't recall there being anything greater than a 10% performance difference between a Pentium and a Core i3.However, for a quad core Intel i5 and i7 Hyper Threading really does not make difference at all. I think most people not looking to build a low priced gaming rig with an Intel CPU would be looking at the core i5 / i7 CPUs.
Yeah I would agree with that. I have no doubt in the near future we will see more games that utilize 8 threads efficiently, but at the moment a strong quad is the sweet spot.
No doubt before then the i5 will get HT (or just get 6 cores with no HT) and the standard desktop i7 will maybe grow to 6, as the socket 2011 should be growing to 8 with Haswell-E, this is purely speculation though.
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
jaguarskx said:
Hyper Threading basically has no effect on game performance since games do not use Hyper Threading. However... (there always seems to be a "however")... When comparing a dual core Pentium CPU to a dual core Core i3 of the same CPU generation, the Core i3 does in fact provide better performance.The main difference between the Pentium and the Core i3 is Hyper Threading. It would seems that Windows uses Hyper Threading for the background processes while games use the actual cores. Many different game benchmarks have shown a decent enough performance difference between to CPUs. However, when there are 4 cores, then Hyper Threading more or less does not make a difference. That's why when people are looking at an Intel CPU for a gaming rig the recommended CPU is a Core i5, not the more expensive Core i7.
I don't think the things you're saying are accurate. The software, games or whatnot, does not need to do anything special to use hyperthreading. The hardware is seen by the OS as twice many physical cores even though they share the underlying ALU and FPU. Hyperthreading is simply thread switching done in hardware. If you have two threads sharing one core without hyperthreading, then the operating system has to switch them constantly on that core. This cost of thread switching in software is not high, but it's still a cost. Hyperthreading simply allows two different processes or threads to run on two separate logical "cores" with the OS not having to do the switching in software. The switching is done in hardware which gains a little bit of performance. It's a neat idea. I think every CPU should come with it. Having said that it's hard to think of a lot of desktop applications needing that many threads. In fact, I doubt there are many games that can load even physical four cores at once. The benchmarks show the Core i5 gets better FPS than Core i3, but you have to keep in mind that some of it is due to Core i5's better single thread performance thanks to turbo.
-
Reply to jacobian
m
0
l
vmN said:
Also games cannot 'utilize' hyper-threading as software cannot see which threads are hyper-threads.So the correct term would be the game cannot utilize the amount of threads.
Software applications can detect the machine's hardware configuration, and can easily configure their own process/thread count and process/thread affinity accordingly. This does not however mean that they actually do so. It's entirely up to the application designer to perform such due diligence. Many applications take either a fixed approach that runs a predetermined number of threads concurrently, or take a naive approach that scales concurrency to the number of logical processors. The latter approach can cause problems in some real-time workloads such as games as a single microprocessor with SMT (Hyperthreading) will appear to be logically equivalent to a pair of similar microprocessors without SMT.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
vmN said:
You have done nothing than agreeing with me.Software(Software after the OS) cannot detect by any means which threads are hyper-threads.
There's no such thing as a "hyper threaded thread". If Hyperthreading is disabled, each physical core is exposed as a single logical processor. If Hyperthreading is enabled, each physical core is exposed as a pair of logical processors. Each thread is reflective of a single frontend. They are not arranged in a superior/subordinate order, they are both fully equivalent. It is entirely up to the Kernel scheduler to make optimal use of the exposed logical processors in order optimize a desired parameter. This parameter may be either real time constraints, power consumption, execution throughput, or most likely some combination thereof. When optimal real time performance is desired, idling one of the threads is the best approach so that the complementary thread can be dominant. When optimal throughput is desired, breaking the workload down into at least one chunk per logical processor ensure that the backend of each core stays as busy as possible.
There is nothing whatsoever preventing software from obtaining a clear view of the logical processor arrangement if the OS provides such a mechanism, but most operating systems do expose key configuration parameters including the number of installed CPUs (sockets), number of physical cores per CPU, and the number of threads per core. The FPGA design software that I use insists on telling me this every time I compile a design. There is no need for time-constrained software to know exactly which hardware thread belongs to which physical core (although there is nothing preventing an OS from exposing just that), the kernel will schedule threads in the most efficient fashion. It is however up to the application to ensure that the optimal number of threads are created.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
vmN said:
Hyper-threading is simply(simple version deal with it) allowing the fetch to deal with 2 threads.these 2 threads share all resources of that core.
My statements still stand true, there is no software that can detect which "thead" is a "hyper-thread".
Your "simple" version of Hyperthreading is simply wrong. Go do some research on Simultaneous Multi Threading and come back here because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. SMT duplicates most, if not all, of the front end including all hardware necessary to track two separate logical states. The back end execution pipes and associated execution units, which do the gruntwork, are what is shared.
Here's a protip for communicating on the internet, stating that "my statement still stands true" does not make one's statement true. Repeating it after being called out by someone very highly educated on the subject matter (I'm a computer engineer, I deal with this stuff for a living) just makes you look like a fool.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
It's true, if you knew anything about hyper-threading.
As you are not putting double the data through the decoder, you are also not increasing the cycles for the FPU or ALU.
Hyper-threading allows the fetch to "have 2 list(one for each threads)" sort of speak.
Each instruction from each "list" will be executed as normal. They still share every resources.
And yes, by statement still stand true, as there are no hyper-threaded threads, as both threads will be handle equal.
I'm an educated data-technician have studied computer and is currently working with Bash-scripting.
As you are not putting double the data through the decoder, you are also not increasing the cycles for the FPU or ALU.
Hyper-threading allows the fetch to "have 2 list(one for each threads)" sort of speak.
Each instruction from each "list" will be executed as normal. They still share every resources.
And yes, by statement still stand true, as there are no hyper-threaded threads, as both threads will be handle equal.
I'm an educated data-technician have studied computer and is currently working with Bash-scripting.
-
Reply to vmN
m
0
l
vmN said:
It's true, if you knew anything about hyper-threading.As you are not putting double the data through the decoder, you are also not increasing the cycles for the FPU or ALU.
Hyper-threading allows the fetch to "have 2 list(one for each threads)" sort of speak.
Each instruction from each "list" will be executed as normal. They still share every resources.
And yes, by statement still stand true, as there are no hyper-threaded threads, as both threads will be handle equal.
I'm an educated data-technician have studied computer and is currently working with Bash-scripting.
None of what you just said makes any sense, and your analysis of SMT is still horribly wrong. It's pretty clear that you're just talking out of your ass hoping that someone who doesn't know better will believe you. Stop it.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
This from Wikipedia makes sense also:
Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources. This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system (HTT-unaware operating systems see two "physical" processors), allowing the operating system to schedule two threads or processes simultaneously and appropriately. When execution resources would not be used by the current task in a processor without hyper-threading, and especially when the processor is stalled, a hyper-threading equipped processor can use those execution resources to execute another scheduled task.
Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources. This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system (HTT-unaware operating systems see two "physical" processors), allowing the operating system to schedule two threads or processes simultaneously and appropriately. When execution resources would not be used by the current task in a processor without hyper-threading, and especially when the processor is stalled, a hyper-threading equipped processor can use those execution resources to execute another scheduled task.
-
Reply to Gee Bee
m
0
l
Gee Bee said:
This from Wikipedia makes sense also:Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources. This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system (HTT-unaware operating systems see two "physical" processors), allowing the operating system to schedule two threads or processes simultaneously and appropriately. When execution resources would not be used by the current task in a processor without hyper-threading, and especially when the processor is stalled, a hyper-threading equipped processor can use those execution resources to execute another scheduled task.
Ah yes, the good old Wikipedia reference. There's a good reason why any sensible school teacher will caution students against using it, even when it's not full of crap it can still smell a bit.
That quotation gets the gist of the technology correct, but I take issue with this line:
"This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system"
All modern platforms expose both their physical and logical configurations. This includes the number of systems per cluster (for more complex machines that span multiple devices), number of sockets per system, number of populated sockets (installed CPU packages), number of microprocessors per CPU package (for those lovely multichip-modules such as the Core 2 Quads and newer AMD Opterons), number of ISA cores per microprocessor, and the number of hardware threads per ISA core. The logical processors concept is simply an abstract way of linearizing and simplifying interaction with the various hardware threads without worrying about the total layout of the system. A more correct statement would be that a single-socket system with a quad core microprocessor with SMT/HT can be viewed as either a single CPU, four physical cores, or eight logical proccessors. It should not be viewed as "four physical cores with four extra logical processors" as that is somewhat misleading.
When this information is pulled together this forms a tree, and the information within this tree can be used by the kernel scheduler to make sane scheduling decisions about active threads (threads that are either running, or ready to run). The same information can be used by user applications to make sane threading decisions and how it would like the scheduler to treat its threads in order to optimize performance. Professional, wide scale applications make liberal use of these mechanisms to optimize performance. Contrary to what vmN keeps repeating, all of this information is available to user mode applications in most modern operating systems (see cpuset(7), among other things) but since games are generally targeted at commercial users who almost always have a single node single socket system there's very little reason to optimize inter-node or inter-socket latency. They simply detect the number of physical cores, or spawn a fixed number of threads, without giving a damn as to whether or not the platform has SMT/HT. Occasionally a game developer will do something stupid and detect the number of logical processors, which can result in decreased performance on Hyperthreaded machines.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
vmN said:
I think you misunderstood/I didn't clarify correctly my quote underneathvmN said:
Software cannot detect by any means which threads are hyper-threads.What I meant was, there are no software that can detect which threads that would have supposed to be the "hyper-threads".
I don't think that you understand what those are then. Hyperthreading is simply Intel's implementation of Simultaneous Multi Threading. SMT couples more than one front end (the part that tracks the machine state, including the CPU registers, program counter, fetch and decode logic) to a single backend (which performs execution, reordering, and retiring), allowing for the backend to execute instructions from two or more running threads during the same cycle just as two or more entirely separate cores would, but with the limitation of only a single core's worth of execution resources. As long as the threads do not contend for the same resources, the backend will see greater utilization. From the perspective of system looking at the logical processors (which is what the schedulers do), the presentation is the same for a dual-core two-way SMT microprocessor and a quad-core non-SMT microprocessor. Both expose 4 completely independent logical processors, but all else being equal the quad core will win out due to the extra execution resources. This is why older operating systems had trouble with Hyperthreading when it was introduced, they looked at only the logical organization of the machine, which was fine from an SMP perspective (SMP = Symmetric Multi Processing, AKA multi-core/multi-socket) but not sufficient for an SMT perspective. The physical organization of each microprocessor needed to be considered as well in order to make the best scheduling decisions. This was repeated again a couple of years ago when AMD released the FX series microprocessors, which do not use SMT and expose as many threads as there are physical cores but do have some shared resources between cores on the same module which impacts performance when the load is not balanced across modules.
Intel's implementation of SMT is known as Hyperthreading and couples two front ends to the same backend. It has changed a bit since it was first introduced with the second generation of Pentium 4 microprocessors in the early 2000s, but the idea is still the same. IBM also uses SMT in their POWER microprocessors. POWER7 based microprocessors have 4 frontends per core, and POWER8 based microprocessors have 8 frontends per core. This means that a 12 core POWER8 microprocessor will appear as 96 logical processors.
As for the second part, about there not being any software capable of detecting which threads are "supposed to be the hyper-threads", that's provably false. Each logical processor in a system is identified by a unique APIC ID (APIC stands for Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller) and the APIC ID of each logical processor contains within it the physical processor ID. If the physical processor ID is the same for two logical processors, then they share the same core. Accessing this is done through the CPUID instruction which is unprivileged and can thus be performed by any application regardless of operating system.
-
Reply to Pinhedd
m
0
l
Pinhedd said:
As for the second part, about there not being any software capable of detecting which threads are "supposed to be the hyper-threads", that's provably false. Each logical processor in a system is identified by a unique APIC ID (APIC stands for Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller) and the APIC ID of each logical processor contains within it the physical processor ID. If the physical processor ID is the same for two logical processors, then they share the same core. Accessing this is done through the CPUID instruction which is unprivileged and can thus be performed by any application regardless of operating system.I'm pretty sure there is a language barrier between us.
"If the physical processor ID is the same for two logical processors, then they share the same core."
This is what I meant, really this very line, you will end up with 2 identical IDs, not one 1 ID for the physical cores and 1 ID for the "hyper-thread", but instead get the same.
What my statement was about, was for people general assumption that games will utilize the 8t/8c from lets say a fx 8320, but wont utilize more than 4t/4c out of a 8t/4c intel I7 processor because of hyper-threading.
-
Reply to vmN
m
0
l
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
!