True Quad Core vs Hyper-Threaded (With overclocking)

[MrJak]

I got curious and started wondering... which would be faster -- An Intel i7 with Hyper-Threading disabled or an i7 that has two cores disabled in BIOS, but keeps Hyper-Threading so that both would show four cores total. To my understanding, it may be possible to get a higher max overclock when using less cores. So if you have the Hyper-Threaded cores clocked faster, could they potentially be faster than the actual quad core? Or could this just be a way for saving power?

If anyone can actually test this, that would be great!

(Also, I don't know which category to put this in)

 

[manofchalk]

So what your basically asking is a Core i3 (two cores, with HT) against a Core i5 (four cores, no HT), should be simple enough to find performance numbers for that.

Also a Hyperthread "virtual" core will never outperform a physical core, they are just a software construct to take advantage of left over on the physical cores.

 

[MrJak]

So what your basically asking is a Core i3 (two cores, with HT) against a Core i5 (four cores, no HT), should be simple enough to find performance numbers for that.

Also a Hyperthread "virtual" core will never outperform a physical core, they are just a software construct to take advantage of left over on the physical cores.

Actually, I'm not asking that, since that has other variables, although they shouldn't make a huge difference. I know that virtual cores aren't as good, but when you take an i7 and disable cores, I've read that you can sometimes get extra room in your overclock, so I was wondering if the boost would compensate for it being in 2 cores + 2 virtual instead of 4 cores.

(because obviouslyan i5 would beat an i3 -- that's not a contest, but i3's don't have any unlocked processors, and can't overclock as well.)

Oh, and I mean mostly for gaming.

 

[manofchalk]

For gaming a higher clock-speed will benefit you more than additional threads (each core supports a thread, which could be described as a stream of processing resources that programs can use). Very few games can take advantage of more than two threads, and even the ones that do still primarily rely on the first two.
If you were in an application where additional threads were properly utilized (Compute programs, video editing) then I think having Hyperthreading enabled would give you more benefit than a slightly higher clock speed.

 

[ihog]

So lemme see if I have this right. An i7:

1). 2 cores enabled, HyperThreading enabled.
2). 4 cores enabled, HyperThreading disabled.

And you want to know which would be faster? At the same clocks, option 2. The first one may be able to hit slightly higher clocks, but the second option will be faster most of the time.

 

[MrJak]

So lemme see if I have this right. An i7:

1). 2 cores enabled, HyperThreading enabled.
2). 4 cores enabled, HyperThreading disabled.

And you want to know which would be faster? At the same clocks, option 2. The first one may be able to hit slightly higher clocks, but the second option will be faster most of the time.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking. (or if it could be about the same, but with less power used -- or cooler)
I'd like to see some testing on it, since I can't do it my self, but I don't doubt that you're right.
It'd just be nice to see some numbers with that.

Again, mostly in terms of gaming performance.