Does hyperthreading affect cpu performance when using a high end gpu?
- Thread starter xYowie
- Start date
Solution
Chugalug_
Titan
- Jan 28, 2016
- 16,502
- 4
- 74,965
There are currently no single cards that bottleneck an i5 afaik. (apart from maybe the titan XP, but if you can afford that you won't be going i5!)
The hyperthreading of an i7 over an i5 provides twice as many cores, therefore allowing twice the graphics power to be taken advantage of theoretically.
Now this does not mean that you'll instantly see massive performance improvements in SLI, it just means that there is more CPU power there, which will allow SLI 1080s for example to boost up to their full speed without bottlenecking.
The amount of CPU power a GPU needs obviously varies, but it is determined by the IPC, (intructions per core, essentially how strong the cores are) clock speed, and core count.
The i7 6700k has 8 threads, the i5 6500 has 4 threads.
Because the AMD FX-6300 has lower IPC than an Intel for example, this means that it's 8 cores and higher clock speeds will be irrelevant due to the little that the cores can actually achieve.
This IPC difference is why AMD falls behind vastly, with a stock speed 8350 coming nowhere close to an i5 6500 let alone the higher end of the market in the x99 chips and the i7s.
I think i'm explaining this right, but let me know if i'm not.
The hyperthreading of an i7 over an i5 provides twice as many cores, therefore allowing twice the graphics power to be taken advantage of theoretically.
Now this does not mean that you'll instantly see massive performance improvements in SLI, it just means that there is more CPU power there, which will allow SLI 1080s for example to boost up to their full speed without bottlenecking.
The amount of CPU power a GPU needs obviously varies, but it is determined by the IPC, (intructions per core, essentially how strong the cores are) clock speed, and core count.
The i7 6700k has 8 threads, the i5 6500 has 4 threads.
Because the AMD FX-6300 has lower IPC than an Intel for example, this means that it's 8 cores and higher clock speeds will be irrelevant due to the little that the cores can actually achieve.
This IPC difference is why AMD falls behind vastly, with a stock speed 8350 coming nowhere close to an i5 6500 let alone the higher end of the market in the x99 chips and the i7s.
I think i'm explaining this right, but let me know if i'm not.
Chugalug_ :
There are currently no single cards that bottleneck an i5 afaik. (apart from maybe the titan XP, but if you can afford that you won't be going i5!)
The hyperthreading of an i7 over an i5 provides twice as many cores, therefore allowing twice the graphics power to be taken advantage of theoretically.
Now this does not mean that you'll instantly see massive performance improvements in SLI, it just means that there is more CPU power there, which will allow SLI 1080s for example to boost up to their full speed without bottlenecking.
The amount of CPU power a GPU needs obviously varies, but it is determined by the IPC, (intructions per core, essentially how strong the cores are) clock speed, and core count.
The i7 6700k has 8 threads, the i5 6500 has 4 threads.
Because the AMD FX-6300 has lower IPC than an Intel for example, this means that it's 8 cores and higher clock speeds will be irrelevant due to the little that the cores can actually achieve.
This IPC difference is why AMD falls behind vastly, with a stock speed 8350 coming nowhere close to an i5 6500 let alone the higher end of the market in the x99 chips and the i7s.
I think i'm explaining this right, but let me know if i'm not.
The hyperthreading of an i7 over an i5 provides twice as many cores, therefore allowing twice the graphics power to be taken advantage of theoretically.
Now this does not mean that you'll instantly see massive performance improvements in SLI, it just means that there is more CPU power there, which will allow SLI 1080s for example to boost up to their full speed without bottlenecking.
The amount of CPU power a GPU needs obviously varies, but it is determined by the IPC, (intructions per core, essentially how strong the cores are) clock speed, and core count.
The i7 6700k has 8 threads, the i5 6500 has 4 threads.
Because the AMD FX-6300 has lower IPC than an Intel for example, this means that it's 8 cores and higher clock speeds will be irrelevant due to the little that the cores can actually achieve.
This IPC difference is why AMD falls behind vastly, with a stock speed 8350 coming nowhere close to an i5 6500 let alone the higher end of the market in the x99 chips and the i7s.
I think i'm explaining this right, but let me know if i'm not.
Thanks, you seem much more knowledgeable than most people here. One thing you might not know is that actually an i5 gets bottlenecked by a gtx 1070 or higher if your running 144hz, you can search it on youtube if you want.
J_E_D_70
Splendid
- Mar 21, 2012
- 7,294
- 59
- 30,290
That is not entirely correct. The good old gamer dude specifically had problems with a 4590k with a couple of games.
I ran tests with my 3570k, slightly lower clocked, and didn't experience a cpu bottleneck in the new doom or witcher 3 (two of his 3 games). Same for BF4 metro 64-player (I dont have crysis 3 to test). Again, whether at 1080/144 or 1440/144 at no point did my cpu peg out at 100% on any core.
That dude has something wrong with his setup. Dont believe everything on youtube.
Edit: if you can afford the i7 I would, as there is more headroom in the long run.
I ran tests with my 3570k, slightly lower clocked, and didn't experience a cpu bottleneck in the new doom or witcher 3 (two of his 3 games). Same for BF4 metro 64-player (I dont have crysis 3 to test). Again, whether at 1080/144 or 1440/144 at no point did my cpu peg out at 100% on any core.
That dude has something wrong with his setup. Dont believe everything on youtube.
Edit: if you can afford the i7 I would, as there is more headroom in the long run.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram