Is i7/HyperThreading performance improving for general use?

[CakeMonster]

I know this might be a bit silly to ask just a few weeks before Haswell release, which should give us a decent answer. But we already have several generations of i5 vs i7 CPUs, so I guess we should be able to tell where we are heading.

What I am asking, if it was unclear, is whether the i7s are performing increasingly better than i5s for each generation for general use. So I'm not thinking of the fact that there is a gradual increase in multithreaded software, but whether the i7s are getting better at managing the additional threads so that they are gradually becoming a better deal. This should be measurable I guess but I know it is a bit murky and complex.

 

[Ed1]

I know this might be a bit silly to ask just a few weeks before Haswell release, which should give us a decent answer. But we already have several generations of i5 vs i7 CPUs, so I guess we should be able to tell where we are heading.

What I am asking, if it was unclear, is whether the i7s are performing increasingly better than i5s for each generation for general use. So I'm not thinking of the fact that there is a gradual increase in multithreaded software, but whether the i7s are getting better at managing the additional threads so that they are gradually becoming a better deal. This should be measurable I guess but I know it is a bit murky and complex.

It depends on how well the app is coded for multithread and how much it can increase .
To get rough idea just compare results between 3570 and 3770(or 2500-2600k) should give rough idea, the 3770 is 100mhz higher .

I am sure Anand got some reviews that show results .

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
not best but can look at i5-2500 verse i7-2600k

you can check these charts to per app .

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

I am not sure Intel did much changes in last few models but the software has changed were it can . you find better multithreaded support now than few yrs ago .

Game app are not going to make much difference once you get above quad core , but things like winrar, photoshop get nice boost .

 

[itsmydamnation]

i have a now old i7 920, disabling HT dropped temps underload, given that the 920 was thermal limited that allowed a higher clock with HT disabled so thats how i have it .

 

[Lagittaja]

Im sure that the programs are better at utilizing multiple than they were few years ago.
I've delidded my 3770K and running 4.5ghz around 1.21v or so, temps aren't really a problem and I'm not even thermally limited in regards OC even though my cooler is only a True Spirit with a GT.
I could go and disable Ht and have a tad lower temps but I bought the 3770K when I got tired of poor encoding perfornance with g530 (doh) so I'll rather use let's say 4.5 with HT than 4.8 without HT.

 

[Silverforce11]

General use? No way. Very few apps make use of 8 threads.
Games even less so. A lot are still 1-2 threads.

 

[aigomorla]

General use? No way. Very few apps make use of 8 threads.
Games even less so. A lot are still 1-2 threads.

well for ht to work it would mean all the real cores would be under load.
So a dual core with HT.. would mean 3 threads for HT to be a benifit.

Games would suffer horribly from HT btw, as HT thread is not as fast as a real core.


To answer your question OP, it depends on how intensive you work your cpu.
Intensive does not mean 1 thread running 100%.
Intensive means overall cpu usage is over 80%.

 

[Puppies04]

whether the i7s are performing increasingly better than i5s for each generation for general use.

I don't think anyone has answered this yet...

 

[Cerb]

I know this might be a bit silly to ask just a few weeks before Haswell release, which should give us a decent answer. But we already have several generations of i5 vs i7 CPUs, so I guess we should be able to tell where we are heading.

What I am asking, if it was unclear, is whether the i7s are performing increasingly better than i5s for each generation for general use. So I'm not thinking of the fact that there is a gradual increase in multithreaded software, but whether the i7s are getting better at managing the additional threads so that they are gradually becoming a better deal. This should be measurable I guess but I know it is a bit murky and complex.

Yes, they are. Due to not having more cache (higher-end Xeons don't suffer this problem ), there will always be cases where HT is suboptimal, but they do keep improving it, generation over generation. These improvements also help the Core i3 CPUs. Namely, look at rates of complaints due to HT slowing things down. I can't find them right now, but I've seen benchmarks showing it empirically for Nehalem v. Sandy Bridge.

However, they are not becoming better deals. The prices have inched up each gen, and since they can get a premium price, that's how it will stay. They are only better deals in cases where you are dealing with HT-friendly software, like Photoshop, or if you're recording gameplay from multithreaded games, or something like that. Until Intel cannot command their premium prices, they will not be better deals for general use.

Even Intel generally advertises HT as offering only 1.2-1.3 effective cores worth of perofrmance per HT core, yet the cost is about 1.5x. No-brainer for a $1500-2000 Photoshop build, but otherwise, not a good value proposition (except that some people want the best, and will pay for it).

 

[Carfax83]

General use? No way. Very few apps make use of 8 threads.
Games even less so. A lot are still 1-2 threads.

Hyperthreading makes a difference in Crysis 3

 

[UaVaj]

Hyperthreading makes a difference in Crysis 3

wow. 26% improvement!

 

[CakeMonster]

Yes, they are. Due to not having more cache (higher-end Xeons don't suffer this problem ), there will always be cases where HT is suboptimal, but they do keep improving it, generation over generation. These improvements also help the Core i3 CPUs. Namely, look at rates of complaints due to HT slowing things down. I can't find them right now, but I've seen benchmarks showing it empirically for Nehalem v. Sandy Bridge.

However, they are not becoming better deals. The prices have inched up each gen, and since they can get a premium price, that's how it will stay. They are only better deals in cases where you are dealing with HT-friendly software, like Photoshop, or if you're recording gameplay from multithreaded games, or something like that. Until Intel cannot command their premium prices, they will not be better deals for general use.

Even Intel generally advertises HT as offering only 1.2-1.3 effective cores worth of perofrmance per HT core, yet the cost is about 1.5x. No-brainer for a $1500-2000 Photoshop build, but otherwise, not a good value proposition (except that some people want the best, and will pay for it).

Thanks, that was exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I was considering (well, not really) the i7 for the Haswell generation but I've yet to see any major improvement from HT. If your assessment is correct, I'm guessing Intel will be stuck on this differentiation for several more generations since most users are perfectly fine with 4 cores and no HT and will be for some time.

 

[Cerb]

Also, here's an interesting link:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2274887

Have to give credit for it to Exophase, for finding it, and hope that any data mining software indexing these sites has a cycle detector (I found it at RWT).

 

[frozentundra123456]

wow. 26% improvement!

I would like to see those numbers verified by a more experienced test site. I would like to see HT be more beneficial in games, but that increase seems awfully high.

 

[toyota]

I would like to see those numbers verified by a more experienced test site. I would like to see HT be more beneficial in games, but that increase seems awfully high.

I believe it. my 2500k at 4.4 is over 95% usage at times in Crysis 3 single player. in fact I even pegged 100% while I was monitoring it. I will no longer recommend just a quad core for a higher end gaming build.

right when I went outside here cpu usage went up and stayed pretty high in this area. ignore the crazy high system ram usage though as I had a lot of tabs open but nothing else was hitting the cpu.

 

[TY-1]

I believe it. my 2500k at 4.4 is over 95% usage at times in Crysis 3 single player. in fact I even pegged 100% while I was monitoring it. I will no longer recommend just a quad core for a higher end gaming build.

I don't think it is actually necessary to recommend beyond a quad core for a higher end gaming build, at least not yet. Crysis 3 is an exception to the rule, just as its predecessors were given how the Crysis series is always designed to push computer hardware to the absolute limit. There are very few games that push CPU performance to the absolute limit as most focus more on GPU performance instead.

 

[Idontcare]

I don't think it is actually necessary to recommend beyond a quad core for a higher end gaming build, at least not yet. Crysis 3 is an exception to the rule, just as its predecessors were given how the Crysis series is always designed to push computer hardware to the absolute limit. There are very few games that push CPU performance to the absolute limit as most focus more on GPU performance instead.

Good advice if you are building a new gaming rig today just to play yesterday's and today's games (excluding the games that exist today that already tax a quad-core)...for everyone else who likes the idea of building a gaming rig today that might stand a chance at not being the bottleneck for games that come out next year and the year after, you might want to reconsider your recommendations for a "high end gaming build" because they are suddenly sounding a lot like an outdated recommendation for a mid-level gaming build

 

[Concillian]

I wouldn't really consider games to be "general use"

I'd consider "general use" to be Excel / Word / Powerpoint / web browser / media consumption.
For that kind of usage, I think it's hard to argue that HT is worth an extra $100ish for an i7 vs. i5.

Even if you consider future proofing... I just don't see "general" applications ever requiring massive threading. Word and Firefox... just not gonna need 8 threads to run well. I know absolutes in this industry are a no no, but I just don't see it happening.

-----

Gaming depends on your intended games and GPU.
This AT article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/5

Demonstrated how little CPU matters when games run at high settings. Most CPU benchmarks are run at very low settings in order to demonstrate differences in CPU performance, but what really matters in gaming is what settings you actually use, and the reality is that most will crank up the settings until the GPU is a bottleneck and the CPU barely matters.

I think a lot of people don't realize how little CPU matters in real world gaming. It's how AMD can setup a rig side by side an Intel CPU and peoplee won't be able to tell the difference. At graphics settings people actually use, most games (not all) are pretty GPU limited and CPU threading, etc... barely matters.

Occasionally you get a game like GTA IV that's ported by monkeys and CPU is an issue as a result. Skyrim was the same way before it got patched to solve the bad port. Occasionally you have games like Civ 5 or Total War series where there is potentially so much unit UI that CPU becomes a signficant issue, or Starcraft where unit UI is an issue because the engine is old and can only handle 2 threads.

on the other hand:

I think the stagnation we see on the CPU side makes a better argument than ever for spending an extra $100ish on an i7 and having that hold you tight an extra year or two on a system upgrade. I've been able to hang on to my OCed i3-530 for about two years longer than I ever expected when I bought it. If I had spent on an i5-750 instead I'd probably be good for one or two more instead of looking at Haswell or potentially an outgoing Ivy.

The direction the industry is moving really has me.... Mr. budget CPU and OC the hell out of it... Mr. haven't spent more than ~$130 on a CPU since a Pentium Pro 150 (1996 I think)... looking at a $300+ CPU as a legitimately good value.

Let's face it, the days of upgrading every generation are gone. It doesn't make sense. SB purchasers are potentially looking at 4 generations to make a significant upgrade worthwhile? If they had bought an i7, they may be able to stretch that to 5 or 6. It's a completely different landscape unless you're a 1%er who has multi-GPUs and plays on the bleeding edge. Buying high end for "future proofing" didn't make sense in the past, because the next generation OCed low to midrange CPUs would be faster than last gens big dogs. Not so anymore. Big dogs are not learning new tricks with new generations, so you can keep them around a while.

 

[toyota]

Good advice if you are building a new gaming rig today just to play yesterday's and today's games (excluding the games that exist today that already tax a quad-core)...for everyone else who likes the idea of building a gaming rig today that might stand a chance at not being the bottleneck for games that come out next year and the year after, you might want to reconsider your recommendations for a "high end gaming build" because they are suddenly sounding a lot like an outdated recommendation for a mid-level gaming build

exactly

 

[Cerb]

Gaming has and will depend on both CPU and GPU. If you want performance, you don't want to let the GPU become your bottleneck. Only with the likes of a 7950 or better is that reasonably possible across the board. They both matter, and they'll both continue to matter. If you could run a game at 60FPS or 30FPS, why would you try to justify 30FPS by saying the GPU is the bottleneck, when all you have to do is spend 20-30 seconds adjusting options to change it? That review has all max settings, which is not what most people can reasonably play at, until some given game is several years old, unless they're spending a lot of money on their PCs.

Budget/OCer: 'twas me! But the perf/$ of Conroe, up to 2.66GHz at the time (I bought pre-Phenom II, so quads were too much) was too good to pass up, and the OC potential was nice, and basically free. I run OCed now, but still undervolted, and doubt I'll worry much about OCing in the future. Unless you simply don't have the money at all, there really isn't value in it, like there used to be. It has its place, in that you can push performance beyond anything you can buy stock, but you spend almost enough to just get faster CPU, trying to do budget overclocking, now.

Mr. Hasn't spent real money on a CPU in forever: he won't get enough of an upgrade from another $130 part, due to lack of competition from AMD, unless he's so far behind as to have a pre-Conroe system, or Phenom (I).

After being disappointed with BD, which I was hoping would be better, I'm taking a wait and see approach towards Haswell, and may very well end up with a $300 CPU. It will be a long time before I give up my desktop*, but I may very well hold on to whatever I upgrade to for 4+ years, with maybe the occasional storage and GPU upgrade (which has also been part of waiting this long, since HSW will add potentially-practical new features). I'll play devil's advocate against HT being the most wonderful feature ever, but you can bet my next CPU will have it .

For current gaming builds, the main thing going against HT is simply the cost v. benefit, compared to spending that additional money on a GPU, SSD, or more RAM. Clearly, Intel sells enough i7s to not need to reduce the price, so that's that, for the time being.

* though, if tablets and the general tablet/phone ecosystem would advance beyond the confines of telcos and booksellers, I could see myself replacing my notebook with a tablet

 

[TY-1]

Good advice if you are building a new gaming rig today just to play yesterday's and today's games (excluding the games that exist today that already tax a quad-core)...for everyone else who likes the idea of building a gaming rig today that might stand a chance at not being the bottleneck for games that come out next year and the year after, you might want to reconsider your recommendations for a "high end gaming build" because they are suddenly sounding a lot like an outdated recommendation for a mid-level gaming build

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There really aren't that may games out there even now that are pushing a quadcore to the absolute limit. I really don't see such games becoming the majority for at least 3-5 years and by then hardware will have changed enough anyways that even a high end rig built now with an Intel i7 Extreme is probably going to have bottlenecking issues.

 

[toyota]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There really aren't that may games out there even now that are pushing a quadcore to the absolute limit. I really don't see such games becoming the majority for at least 3-5 years and by then hardware will have changed enough anyways that even a high end rig built now with an Intel i7 Extreme is probably going to have bottlenecking issues.

again for a "high end gaming" pc it would be silly to get just a quad core if building from scratch at this point. a quad is already getting pushed to the limit in a couple of games so to think it wont be an issue for 3-5 years is silly. so right now it already helps if you want to get the most out of high end gaming pc. and we are talking about not being able to stay above 120 fps(for those with 120hz screens) and even 60fps in a few cases so that is a playable difference NOW. saving literally less than 10% on a full build is foolish unless you plan on upgrading the cpu again within a couple years.

 

[willomz]

I would like to see those numbers verified by a more experienced test site. I would like to see HT be more beneficial in games, but that increase seems awfully high.

Doesn't look like hyperthreading does much here.

 

[cytg111]

Good advice if you are building a new gaming rig today just to play yesterday's and today's games (excluding the games that exist today that already tax a quad-core)...for everyone else who likes the idea of building a gaming rig today that might stand a chance at not being the bottleneck for games that come out next year and the year after, you might want to reconsider your recommendations for a "high end gaming build" because they are suddenly sounding a lot like an outdated recommendation for a mid-level gaming build

I dont know, to me it is a tad too much crystal-ball looking into the future than I'd like .. standing on the verge of new ground it is hard to predict what is to come and what hardware will be best suited to withhold. Crysis3 and PS4 might just be game changers, but it is too soon to tell.
Building a gaming rig today I would spend less and get by and see whats what when the dust settles.

 

[Enigmoid]

Doesn't look like hyperthreading does much here.

Doesn't look like a particularily cpu heavy area there.

 

[Idontcare]

I dont know, to me it is a tad too much crystal-ball looking into the future than I'd like .. standing on the verge of new ground it is hard to predict what is to come and what hardware will be best suited to withhold. Crysis3 and PS4 might just be game changers, but it is too soon to tell.
Building a gaming rig today I would spend less and get by and see whats what when the dust settles.

Distinction here is would you call your approach "high end" or would you call it something decidedly less than high-end?