Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

CPU - Hyperthread or not?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • ASrock
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 29, 2014 2:28:16 AM

Hello.I have a question:
I am building a cheap PC,that looks like:
AsRock h97 PRO4
4gb ram Patriot
Sirtec Bronze 500w
Tesseract BF
Now the question:
Should I get i3 4150 with this MOBO or g3258 with an Asus H97 Mobo?I heard that games doesn't know hyper-thread,so I should get the g3258?Or just AsRock Mobo with g3220 and keep money for november?To note is that in November I'll upgrade to Broadwell Cpu and new Nvidia 8xx series,that's who I chose h97.Will oc-ing 3258 will give me more FPS?
Thanks for your time.

More about : cpu hyperthread

a b à CPUs
June 29, 2014 3:00:33 AM

The only game that uses hyperthreading is Crysis 3, and that's about it, others may use it in the future but who knows. Don't get the i3 they are bad for gaming, its going to hold you back a lot, at least get a 3rd gen i5. Good luck!
m
0
l
June 29, 2014 3:24:18 AM

Thing is I can't spend much money now...I have to chose either i3 4150 or g3220/3258...And I want Haswell or Haswell Refresh,so in november I can upgrade to Broadwell...Games I will be playing are games like LoL,DotA,TF2 and something maybe Far Cry 3...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2014 5:01:55 AM

d1vine said:
Thing is I can't spend much money now...I have to chose either i3 4150 or g3220/3258...And I want Haswell or Haswell Refresh,so in november I can upgrade to Broadwell...Games I will be playing are games like LoL,DotA,TF2 and something maybe Far Cry 3...


Get at least an i5 save more money, you will regret it later... and you will end up spending more money.
m
0
l
June 29, 2014 6:24:00 AM

I can't.My budget doesn't let me get an i5...That's why I'm getting h97 mobo,so I can get Broadwell when it comes out...
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
June 29, 2014 6:36:52 AM

Take the i3. Many games can use up to 4 threads, so its hyperthreading will be used.

Absolutely take the i3 4150 over the pentium.
m
1
l
July 22, 2014 6:10:05 PM

==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
July 23, 2014 7:43:49 AM

faye__kane said:
==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.


No.
m
1
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 7:48:44 AM

cabudinen said:
The only game that uses hyperthreading is Crysis 3, and that's about it, others may use it in the future but who knows. Don't get the i3 they are bad for gaming, its going to hold you back a lot, at least get a 3rd gen i5. Good luck!


This is a myth. We say that about i7's because Hyperthreading causes it to behave like an 8-core processor. Most games don't have that many threads to allocate, so the extra four logical cores sit unused. Hyperthreading per se isn't the point.
On a Core i3, Hyperthreading behaves like a quad-core, which many games can use quite well. Core i3's do indeed perform significantly better in threaded games when Hyperthreading is enabled.

That being said, if you're planning to upgrade in a few months anyway, just take the Pentium and overclock it as far as it will go. At high frequency, it will perform similarly to an i3 in most games for quite a bit less money, and still in a socket reusable for Broadwell.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overc...
Share
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 7:51:45 AM

faye__kane said:
==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.


An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks.

However, my advice is on the pentium and a z97 board. Overclock it to it's limits and when you can afford an i5/i7 get a k (unlocked) version. An overclocked pentium is stronger than the i3 in single core performance and about equal in threaded performance.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 7:52:28 AM

The guy with the weird pic does have a point. If you are on a budget especially, you will get much better performance overall with AMD over Intel in your price range.

If you want Intel, then just wait to upgrade to an i5 like someone else mentioned. Why upgrade CPU now knowing you are going to upgrade again in a few months? It is a waste of money and time.

Regarding games using HT, most modern games will scale and use the resources and power of the CPU. Crysis 3 is NOT the only game that uses more than 2 cores.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 7:54:22 AM

DubbleClick said:
faye__kane said:
==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.


An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks.

However, my advice is on the pentium and a z97 board. Overclock it to it's limits and when you can afford an i5/i7 get a k (unlocked) version. An overclocked pentium is stronger than the i3 in single core performance and about equal in threaded performance.


Seriously. Please provide some of the "80%" of tasks that the dual core i3 can perform better than the 8350? I have to see this performance. LOL Bottom line is that it simply lacks the resources to even compete!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 7:57:31 AM

TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
faye__kane said:
==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.


An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks.

However, my advice is on the pentium and a z97 board. Overclock it to it's limits and when you can afford an i5/i7 get a k (unlocked) version. An overclocked pentium is stronger than the i3 in single core performance and about equal in threaded performance.


Seriously. Please provide some of the "80%" of tasks that the dual core i3 can perform better than the 8350? I have to see this performance. LOL Bottom line is that it simply lacks the resources to even compete!


Anything that uses 4 or less cores.

Edit: Ohlook: http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 8:03:33 AM

DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
faye__kane said:
==-
If you want to get the most performance for your money, buy an AMD chip, period. This is most true for high-performance asskick processors.


An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks.

However, my advice is on the pentium and a z97 board. Overclock it to it's limits and when you can afford an i5/i7 get a k (unlocked) version. An overclocked pentium is stronger than the i3 in single core performance and about equal in threaded performance.


Seriously. Please provide some of the "80%" of tasks that the dual core i3 can perform better than the 8350? I have to see this performance. LOL Bottom line is that it simply lacks the resources to even compete!


Anything that uses 4 or less cores.

Edit: Ohlook: http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/



The i3 only has 2 cores. Even in HT, the CPU still only has the resource of just two integer cores. Just how high is this performance increase you speak of? What applications? Can you list the specs of your builds with these two CPUs and tell us the performance difference you either felt or benchmarked?...

Thanks!
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 8:11:21 AM

DubbleClick said:
Click me.


I asked for some empirical evidence from your personal experience. Anyone can Google some online "benchmarks". But its cool.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 8:13:24 AM

TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
Click me.


I asked for some empirical evidence from your personal experience. Anyone can Google some online "benchmarks". But its cool.


I can't give you personal experience on that, I do have neither of those cpu's. I'm just very well aware that most games are still limited to the use of 2-4 cores, which underlines the i3 performance and goes well with that those benchmarks say.

But while we're at it, where is your personal experience?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 8:18:06 AM

TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
Click me.


I asked for some empirical evidence from your personal experience. Anyone can Google some online "benchmarks". But its cool.


Personal experience is subjective (opposite of empirical, I'll point out) and most people don't have the knowledge and/or the resources to take into account proper experimental variables. If you don't take information from online benchmarks from reputable sources, then you don't know very much about this.

Since your request for data was answered, could I ask for some of yours? Preferably from your own personal experience. Don't forget to include a run-down of your testing environment as well, including your method of measuring and recording framerates and frame-time variances.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 8:40:37 AM

Firstly, if you have some actual empirical evidence, then it is from your "personal" experience. I am not getting into semantics. Secondly, my request for empirical data from his "personal" experience did NOT go answered. He provided generic online benchmarks. Which I did not ask for.

However, I do not simply believe everything I read online either. What gaming benchmarks would you like regarding my rig.

FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD

I benchmark using Fraps with 300 second (5 minute) benchmarks. Here are some averages from the top of my head. I am not currently on my gaming rig so do not have access to the spreadsheets that Fraps produce. All benchmarks from 1080p resolution.

Tomb Raider 3 - All maxed out (TressFX; 2xSSAA) 50-60 fps (TressFX; FXAA 70-100 fps)
Battlefield 3 - Ultra preset (4xAA; 16AF) 70-110 fps
The Witcher 2 - All maxed out settings (Uber sampling disabled) 70-100 fps (with Uber 30-60 fps)

If I had access to the spreadsheets, I could give min and max and also different averages (they are never exactly the same). I also have some for other games. But I cannot remember them so I will not post them.

This is my empirical evidence from my "personal" experience! This was all that I asked for. It is not that difficult. The editors of these online websites are NOT engineers! LOL They test for 90 seconds and they sometimes even choose which part of the game/map to benchmark. Anyone who does their own benchmarking knows that frames vary based upon the map and what is happening during the gameplay. I personally do not play a game for 90 seconds, only running straight through a particular part of the game. Maybe you can explain how that setup show the "real-life performance" of games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 8:47:21 AM

TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, if you have some actual empirical evidence, then it is from your "personal" experience. I am not getting into semantics. Secondly, my request for empirical data from his "personal" experience did NOT go answered. He provided generic online benchmarks. Which I did not ask for.

However, I do not simply believe everything I read online either. What gaming benchmarks would you like regarding my rig.

FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD

I benchmark using Fraps with 300 second (5 minute) benchmarks. Here are some averages from the top of my head. I am not currently on my gaming rig so do not have access to the spreadsheets that Fraps produce. All benchmarks from 1080p resolution.

Tomb Raider 3 - All maxed out (TressFX; 2xSSAA) 50-60 fps (TressFX; FXAA 70-100 fps)
Battlefield 3 - Ultra preset (4xAA; 16AF) 70-110 fps
The Witcher 2 - All maxed out settings (Uber sampling disabled) 70-100 fps (with Uber 30-60 fps)

If I had access to the spreadsheets, I could give min and max and also different averages (they are never exactly the same). I also have some for other games. But I cannot remember them so I will not post them.

This is my empirical evidence from my "personal" experience! This was all that I asked for. It is not that difficult. The editors of these online websites are NOT engineers! LOL They test for 90 seconds and they sometimes even choose which part of the game/map to benchmark. Anyone who does their own benchmarking knows that frames vary based upon the map and what is happening during the gameplay. I personally do not play a game for 90 seconds, only running straight through a particular part of the game. Maybe you can explain how that setup show the "real-life performance" of games.


Read through the article if you want to know where then tested what. Reputable websites usually choose the same replicable scenario to run on the different specs they compare each other to.

I mean, I could also come in here and say guild wars runs on 1300 fps with my i7 4790k. How this might change the superiority of the i3 in single threads compared to the 8350... I don't know.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:00:16 AM

Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.

You made the claim about the performance between the two. I honestly wanted to know the difference from someone with firsthand experience in the matter. That is why I asked the question.

Don't get upset because you were unable to prove, point out or even demonstrate from firsthand experience your claim (not mine) about a CPU performing 80% better than another. You had no first hand experience. That's all you had to say.

Seeing then as you have NO empirical, personal or firsthand experience in the matter, I will just conclude that your "80% claim-to-fame" remark was just unfounded opinion about how you believe the CPUs work based upon some color charts and graphs from a website that you know nothing about (do you know the editor, writer of the article, etc).

Without any firsthand experience, you are not even qualified to testify as a witness! LOL You passed judgment based upon the "evidence" that the police released to the media. You have not interviewed any suspects, reviewed the evidence with your own eyes, yet you are sure the person is guilty (sure about the 80% increase in performance).

That was all I was pointing out. No need to get upset about it. :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:04:57 AM

TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.


I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:05:15 AM

TheLastof Me said:
FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD


This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that i3's are almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.

Since most of us cannot own every possible combination of hardware out there, and keep that hardware updated yearly/monthly/weekly, we really couldn't be educated buyers if we didn't rely somewhat on reputable review sites.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:08:26 AM

DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.


I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.




Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:08:50 AM

oxiide said:
TheLastof Me said:
FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD


This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that an i3 is almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.


This.

Not only is the i3 cheaper, it also offers an upgrade path to lets say an i7 which beats even heavily overclocked 8350's in absolutely everything.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:10:34 AM

TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.


I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.




Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH


Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:15:32 AM

oxiide said:
TheLastof Me said:
FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD


This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that i3's is almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.

Since most of us cannot own every possible combination of hardware out there, and keep that hardware updated yearly/monthly/weekly, we really couldn't be educated buyers if we didn't rely somewhat on reputable review sites.


A single 270x only limited me when it came to anti-aliasing. I was gaming at 60+fps with Ultra/high settings before the second 270x. Two 270x is about the same performance of a 290x. There will be a noticeable difference in gaming depending on your CPU when Crossfiring two cards on the higher end.

Regarding this point, I have read reviews where the r7-250 performed exactly the same (avg fps) with a i7-3770k, A10 and i3. In the case of a low end card like that, the CPU does not matter. However, two r9-270x are high end cards, and the CPU will make a difference.

And relying "somewhat" is the key! LOL I read reviews also. I also have seen inconsistencies, difference performance from what I had on similar hardware and just flat out bias, specious reporting.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:17:40 AM

DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.


I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.




Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH


Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."


That statement is how this all got started. You making a claim about the performance of two CPUs. I then asked for firsthand experience (empirical, personal or otherwise), then you provided me with a link to benchmarks.
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:19:36 AM


Not only is the i3 cheaper, it also offers an upgrade path to lets say an i7 which beats even heavily overclocked 8350's in absolutely everything.[/quotemsg]

It beats it in "absolutely everything"? It is outrageous remarks like this that begs the question, "how do you know this based upon firsthand experience"?.....
m
0
l
July 23, 2014 9:20:31 AM

We have gotten way off topic. My apologies to the OP.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:30:32 AM

TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
DubbleClick said:
TheLastof Me said:
Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.


I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.




Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH


Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."


That statement is how this all got started. You making a claim about the performance of two CPUs. I then asked for firsthand experience (empirical, personal or otherwise), then you provided me with a link to benchmarks.


Nice attempt of changing the topic. I never said the i3 would perform 80% better than the 8350, which would be a ridiculous claim.

As for the i7 beating the 8350 in everything, there's not only evidience by absolutely all benchmarks in the net I could find, but also my comparing my own benchmark scores to 8350 ones. And mine isn't even overclocked yet at all, therefore running at 4.2ghz at 4 cores instead of 4.6-4.8ghz a normal chip is capable of.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:36:35 AM

Outdated thread. None of this arguing will help OP in the end.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:37:59 AM

JOOK-D said:
Outdated thread. None of this arguing will help OP in the end.


True. My advice stay same, though. I'd gather the cheap pentium with a z97 board, overclock the hell out of it to be on i3 level and upgrade to i5/i7 later on.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2014 9:47:11 AM

TheLastof Me said:
oxiide said:
TheLastof Me said:
FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD


This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that i3's is almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.

Since most of us cannot own every possible combination of hardware out there, and keep that hardware updated yearly/monthly/weekly, we really couldn't be educated buyers if we didn't rely somewhat on reputable review sites.


A single 270x only limited me when it came to anti-aliasing. I was gaming at 60+fps with Ultra/high settings before the second 270x. Two 270x is about the same performance of a 290x. There will be a noticeable difference in gaming depending on your CPU when Crossfiring two cards on the higher end.

Regarding this point, I have read reviews where the r7-250 performed exactly the same (avg fps) with a i7-3770k, A10 and i3. In the case of a low end card like that, the CPU does not matter. However, two r9-270x are high end cards, and the CPU will make a difference.

And relying "somewhat" is the key! LOL I read reviews also. I also have seen inconsistencies, difference performance from what I had on similar hardware and just flat out bias, specious reporting.


I apologize, I didn't intend to continue this but I noticed that I overlooked that you said they were two R9 270X's in Crossfire and I figured I should fess up to that. Yes, you're right, that's a fairly high-end graphics setup. But you still can't objectively compare two processors that you don't own unless you trust a benchmark somewhere, and you can't be sure what's limiting your performance if you can't swap out hardware to test what difference it makes.
m
1
l
!