Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i7 920 (2 cores/4 threads) VS. Core i7 920 (4 cores/4 threads)

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Intel i7
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 15, 2009 5:54:45 AM

To all Core i7 920 users here


Can you conduct a benchmark comparing a Core i7 920 with HT disabled and a Core i7 920 with 2 cores disabled but HT enabled ?

It will be Core i7 920 (2C/4T) vs. Core i7 920 (4C/4T)

I'd like to know the performance difference in video encoding, 3D gaming, and 3D Mark Vantage


I'm thinking of getting a Core i5 750 2.66 GHz this September 2009 but it has no HT. Core i7 860 28 GHz have HT but it will be released in Q1 of 2010

I'm using a Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz and it bottlenecks my GTX 275. Does HT has a big imapct on gaming? Should I wait for Core i7 860 or just buy a Core i5 750?


My PC is just for gaming.

More about : core 920 cores threads core 920 cores threads

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 15, 2009 6:35:17 AM

I can pretty much guarantee you that it will be faster with 4c/4t than with 2c/4t. I can run some tests at i7 920 clocks (I have a 965, but I can drop everything down to 920 level) in 15 or 20 mins though - what kind of 3d gaming and video encoding benchmarks were you thinking of?
August 15, 2009 6:46:58 AM

cjl said:
I can pretty much guarantee you that it will be faster with 4c/4t than with 2c/4t. I can run some tests at i7 920 clocks in 15 or 20 mins though - what kind of 3d gaming and video encoding benchmarks were you thinking of?


I play Far Cry 2, Crysis, Mas Effect, Fallout 3.... games like that.

For the video encoding, .mpg to .avi ... flv. to avi. ... and other format conversions


I'm planning on upgrading. Is Core i5 750 worth the money? Tomshardware conducted a benchmark of a simualted Core i5 750 2.66 GHz (Core i7 920 2.66 GHz, HT disabled, one DDR3 memory channel removed). It totally beat the Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4 GHz

Here is my current setup

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz
Inno3D GeForce GTX 275 896MB OC Edition
Kingston 2GB DDR2 800 CL6
ECS GF7050VT-M5 (a crappy motherboard, no OC)
Samsung 250GB SATA
Samsung (SH-S202J) DVD drive
CorsairHX620
Antec 300
Samsung 2233SW 22" (1920 x 1080)


I can't use the full potential of my GeForce GTX 275 coz my Q6600 is slow... I can't OC my Q6600 since my motherboard offers no OC. If I will OC, I will need a P45 motherboard and a good CPU cooler.

Might as well buy a new CPU and motherboard

I saw a benchmark of a Lynnfield engineering sample clocked at 2.13 GHz with HT enabled. It was just overclocked to 2.66 GHz to measure its performance against Core i7 920 2.66 GHz. It performed very close to Core i7 920 and it beat Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz

What do you guys suggest? Should I buy a Core i5 this September? Will Core i5 give a big performance boost over my current setup?
Related resources
August 15, 2009 7:27:46 AM

You can push your cpu with the ECS to about 2.8 ~ 3 Ghz and that will improve your gameplay since on a quad core the sweet spot is about 3.3Ghz (when it will saturate a high end GPU). So my answer will be: wait. Don't buy a new motherboard + CPU + memory just to get the same amount of FPS as you can get with your current setup if you overclock it a bit.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 15, 2009 7:57:42 AM


Here's some gaming and 3dmark stuff for my CPU as it's running right now though (2x4870x2, 3.73GHz, 4c/8t). All were taken with Catalyst 9.6.

FC2 Ranch Long benchmark, 1920x1200, Ultra High 8xAA (3 run avg): 67fps

Crysis x86, 1920x1200, CPU benchmark, Very High DX10, 2xAA (3 run avg): 32.4fps

3dmark Vantage, Extreme preset: X12787, 12495 GPU, 22992 CPU

Media encoding (.mpg to .wmv, 809MB, 1Mbps VBR): 11:59 (mm:ss)

Oh, and if you tell me what encoder you use (as long as it's free), I'll rerun the tests tomorrow or something with your encoder.

Sorry this first batch took so long - the other batches should be faster, since I figured out why the crysis benchmarking tool wasn't working for me.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 15, 2009 8:57:28 AM

Here's 4c/4t at 2.80GHz (2.66 + 1 step turbo)

FC2 Ranch Long benchmark, 1920x1200, Ultra High 8xAA (3 run avg): 61.45fps

Crysis x86, 1920x1200, CPU benchmark, Very High DX10, 2xAA (3 run avg): 28.35fps

3dmark Vantage, Extreme preset: X12142, 12104 GPU, 12894 CPU

Media encoding (.mpg to .wmv, 809MB, 1Mbps VBR): 14:03 (mm:ss)
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 15, 2009 10:00:42 AM

And here's 2c/4t at 2.80GHz (2.66 + 1 step turbo)

FC2 Ranch Long benchmark, 1920x1200, Ultra High 8xAA (3 run avg): 59.4 fps

Crysis x86, 1920x1200, CPU benchmark, Very High DX10, 2xAA (3 run avg): 29.2 fps (apparently, this cares more for clock speed than number of cores)

3dmark Vantage, Extreme preset: X11754, 11980 GPU, 8650 CPU

Media encoding (.mpg to .wmv, 809MB, 1Mbps VBR): 21:08 (mm:ss)
August 15, 2009 4:23:59 PM

I dont really see a big margin from your 4/4 @ 2.8ghz and 4/8 @ 3.73ghz ... its a ~40% OC and i only see like 5% change in the numbers ...

Its a lil diseapointing ...

My 3Dmark06 score nearly follow my OC in the numbers ( EX : 19800 @ 3.8 and 20600 @ 4.08 ) ... is this false for 3dmark vantage ?
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
August 15, 2009 9:21:26 PM

Vantage is far less CPU dependent than 06. If I posted 06 numbers, there would be a massive difference between the scores. Look at the CPU scores in Vantage if you want to see the largest difference. Windows Media Encoder shows a significant difference as well, but it only seems to use 4 threads, so it only gains from the clockspeed, not the additional threads (there's a HUGE difference between 4c/4t and 2c/4t on windows media encoder though).
August 15, 2009 9:26:49 PM

Encoding/media editing generally like Multiple core + speed.

Most of the games arnt optimized for 8 thread. On OCforum a guy made test with few games and he had better FPS with 4/4 = less heat. He discovered that for the games he is playing, he is better without HT.
August 16, 2009 12:40:57 AM

For encoding you say you are converting to avi which is just a container. I would guess you are probably converting to xvid which is the most common codec used for what are avi files. If that is what you are doing xvid doesn't even make full use of 2 cores.

I use my PC mostly for recording and editing HDTV and then convert to xvid for archiving. I tested 2cores vs 4 cores on my system and on a encode that took a little over an hour the difference was 13sec (2 cores was fastest) which is basically the same. Also my i7 is aprox 15~20% faster clock for clock than my wolfdale. Thee are times that 4 cores will help if you are doing other tasks that use a fair amount of cpu cycles but just doing the conversion 2 cores are as fast as more.
!