So these AMD processors are coming soon? Sweet! I'm looking forward to the discounts on Intel chips.
Very possible. Seems to have happened at the budget end of the market with Intel's release of the Kaby Lake Pentium. Priced at around - or below - AMD X4 prices and with a performance boost thanks to the addition of hyper-threading.
They probably won't do anything until Ryzen is both launched and readily available though.
Of what value is hyperthreading to gaming? Don't know of any games that use it currently.
The resources are more important. Which is why HT cores usually run slower when it come to games. They are running on 1/2 resources. Its rare to see a game take advantage of more then 4 cores. All HT is doing is making each core run 2 processes at a time instead of 1. Which splits that core's resources causing it to run slower.
YUP, the game has to be written to take advantage of hyper threading and I don't know any game that is designed that way.
1) It is possible to detect if a CPU is hyperthreading or not, but is not typically done, because....
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
Games can't take advantage of many additional cores, so it makes sense they also can't take advantage of hyperthreading. It has nothing to do with the sharing of resources, it has nothing to do with one core running two processes. It has everything to do with the way game engines and APIs are written, and the fact that symmetric algorithms that branch out well over multiple processing assets don't readily exist for every linear problem (and games are very much linear, as you have a frame due every xx millliseconds).
And that's going to be the same reason that an 8-core Ryzen won't significantly outplay a 4-core Ryzen, clock for clock, in gaming.
1) It is possible to detect if a CPU is hyperthreading or not, but is not typically done, because....
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
Games can't take advantage of many additional cores, so it makes sense they also can't take advantage of hyperthreading. It has nothing to do with the sharing of resources, it has nothing to do with one core running two processes. It has everything to do with the way game engines and APIs are written, and the fact that symmetric algorithms that branch out well over multiple processing assets don't readily exist for every linear problem (and games are very much linear, as you have a frame due every xx millliseconds).
And that's going to be the same reason that an 8-core Ryzen won't significantly outplay a 4-core Ryzen, clock for clock, in gaming.
E-Retailers have begun to prep the store pages for the new Ryzen Processors. A few hit the web database and were thus recoverable. One from Belgium and one from Taiwan. Both had the release date of February 28th and were beginning pre-orders. If the Ryzen processors are as good as the Core processors, then they will be priced similarly. AMD has had a lot of lost capital that they need to recover.
Could Intel afford to squeeze them in a price war? I've been wondering. Although they're having their own issues with the Atom C2000 so that might be a factor in how aggressively they meet this release. It all really depends on how good Zen is.
Intel is a very wealthy company, with oodles of resources. But they are a publicly traded blue chip stock, so any time their value does not go up it is treated like a loss in the eyes of wall street. A small loss that they could easily shake off is treated like a major disaster. So read 'bad' news about Intel accordingly.
AMD is also publicly traded, but they are not a blue chip, so they can be more aggressive. A small loss that would trigger doom and gloom about Intel is just an 'adjustment' for AMD. While it would be nice for them to make money in one of the upcoming quarters, they don't need to because they are a 'rock star' in the eyes of Wall street. If AMD closed shop, Intel would become a trust and would be forced to break their company up into little pieces, a real disaster for Intel stockholders. Therefore Wall street is VERY invested in keeping AMD alive, which is why they never have problems getting refinanced.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
1) It is possible to detect if a CPU is hyperthreading or not, but is not typically done, because....
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
This is true about hyperthreading. What the two previous posters have said is not. Programming wise, there's absolutely no difference in coding for multi- and hyperthreading, because it's the same thing software side, it's used exactly the same way.
And what I said was true. Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors. The thread is sharing a core's resources making it slower when under full load. And because the software just see's an 8 core processor it doesn't realize that its really shared cores and not full ones. Yea IDK why anyone would even think to make HT and Mulithreading two different things.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
Don't try to evade my question with some stuff people were maybe doing 10 years ago because they didn't know better.
Post a link to what I asked. Proof. Numbers. Not some assumptions, beliefs and wishful thinking. A 4 core processor vs a 4 core 8 threads one, same generation, same frequency, same motherboard/RAM/GPU, and the 4 core one winning. Come on ! You seem so sure, you must be able to provide a proof.
It depends on the game and how much workload per thread is coded. Which is why when you watch the video some of the games run better with HT disabled and some run worse.
Thats what you call a proof? Talk about shooting in your own foot, does it hurt ?
I notice that the processor with more threads is always faster... on older games, too. Crisis 3... seriously?
Conclusion of your little video... the processor with more threads is always faster, and there's a very ironic detail... on BF4 the 2c/4t is actually faster than the 4c/4t one! (most likely an error margin, but still funny considering your claim).
And the conclusion of the video guy is the same. Don't turn it off.
You're definitely a funny guy. All that video proves is that the hyperthreading technology is incredibly efficient. And it also shows that the games selected for that video make a very bad use of multithreading in general.
Lets believe perhaps your own words then?
Actually, any game using more than 4 threads at the same time is somehow taking advantage of a processor with more than 4 cores. Not to mention to bunch of system tasks running in the background. But yeah, even today, games benefit more of raw single core speed than multi core speed. And since Intel combines both advantages, better single core performance AND better mutli-core (including logical cores) performance, it's normal it crushes AMD processors (before ZEN). Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/460497/how-many-cpu-cores-for-gaming/p4#MGqiUZFyQEXURVCG.99
Amusing how when you get your nose buried in your own nonsense, you try to revert your stance to be still "right" somehow. Let me remind everyone of your original claim:
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
Just to make things very clear.
And I assumed people would use common sense when applying the statement. You can code just about anything to work any way you wish. So yes it can be coded to take full advantage of 8 cores but most of the time it has not been done that way. The resources of the threads are shared which would make them slower then a fully equipped thread that has a dedicated core. Why is that so hard to understand that a shared core is weaker and slower then a dedicated core?
Amusing how when you get your nose buried in your own nonsense, you try to revert your stance to be still "right" somehow. Let me remind everyone of your original claim:
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
Just to make things very clear.
And I assumed people would use common sense when applying the statement. You can code just about anything to work any way you wish. So yes it can be coded to take full advantage of 8 cores but most of the time it has not been done that way. The resources of the threads are shared which would make them slower then a fully equipped thread that has a dedicated core. Why is that so hard to understand that a shared core is weaker and slower then a dedicated core?
How I wish that were true.
Hell yeah... maybe we should hire "filmoret" so he shows us?
Lets put this to rest. I try to be civilized but somehow you just want me to be wrong. Very rarely does a HT cpu outperform turned on. Mostly it does better when HT is turned off. So why does it almost never have an increase in performance when HT is turned on? I mean it should be shooting numbers through the roof. But it doesn't. SO explain why HT turned on isnt a significant increase instead its a slight decrease in performance.
Amusing how when you get your nose buried in your own nonsense, you try to revert your stance to be still "right" somehow. Let me remind everyone of your original claim:
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
Just to make things very clear.
And I assumed people would use common sense when applying the statement. You can code just about anything to work any way you wish. So yes it can be coded to take full advantage of 8 cores but most of the time it has not been done that way. The resources of the threads are shared which would make them slower then a fully equipped thread that has a dedicated core. Why is that so hard to understand that a shared core is weaker and slower then a dedicated core?
How I wish that were true.
Hell yeah... maybe we should hire "filmoret" so he shows us?
Lets put this to rest. I try to be civilized but somehow you just want me to be wrong. Very rarely does a HT cpu outperform turned on. Mostly it does better when HT is turned off. So why does it almost never have an increase in performance when HT is turned on? I mean it should be shooting numbers through the roof. But it doesn't. SO explain why HT turned on isnt a significant increase instead its a slight decrease in performance.
I don't want you to be wrong, you are wrong. And what's funny is that you disprove yourself. Using a few games which make bad use of multithreading do not make an hyperthreaded CPU slower than a non-hyperthreading one. You have the same results between 8c, 4c and 2c CPUs without hyperthreading. This said I have a raid to attend, much more fun than this. See ya tomorrow.
Well if you have the same results then hyperthreading isnt adding any performance is it? And now we are saying that HT doesn't share resources?
I don't want you to be wrong, you are wrong. And what's funny is that you disprove yourself. Using a few games which make bad use of multithreading do not make an hyperthreaded CPU slower than a non-hyperthreading one. You have the same results between 8c, 4c and 2c CPUs without hyperthreading. This said I have a raid to attend, much more fun than this. See ya tomorrow.
Well if you have the same results then hyperthreading isnt adding any performance is it? And now we are saying that HT doesn't share resources?
His point was that even in "the few games that make bad use of multithreading" a cpu with HT is no slower than a cpu without HT. The flip side being that in "the many games" that can make use of it HT will give a performance boost.
Anyway my post above was not so much about HT but about Intel and "budget" cpus. Previously Intel had "left out" HT to - maybe - make i3s more attractive. They have now reversed this position.
How this will play out remains to be seen but with (US) prices starting at c. $65 this, imo, is an assault on AMDs position in a "sub-sector" in which Intel arguably is not - or not as - "dominant".
Manufacturers if they wish will now be able to buy one motherboard if they wish and create a "range" of PCs - manufacturers like commonality. And they would get the "Intel inside" tag as well for marketing.
And people who want to build a budget PC today with an upgrade option to a more powerful Intel cpu downstream.
Could AMD cut their prices? Absolutely. It will make it harder for them to price Ryzen as "cheaply" as they might otherwise have done. No company can survive long term on razor thin margins across its entire product range.
People often turn off Hyperthreading because it allows for faster overclocks. Games that don't scale to the additional cores well anyway will then benefit from the faster overclock. This isn't always the case, it's just a function of the silicon lottery, and the fact that hyperthreading adds another layer of complexity to an overclock that could, but not always, present a limiting case in an otherwise on-edge overclock.
That's what filmoret is confusing.
Multithreaded software has existed for decades. The entire "big deal" about Windows 95 was that it was the first Microsoft Consumer OS to really support preemptive multitheading (there were other OSes before it, OS/2 for example, but none as widely used). Windows 95 ran before there were even multi-core consumer processors (and extremely few multi-processor SMP machines at the consumer level). So don't confuse threads with cores.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
For achieving a higher clock.
The software that I OC for, gets no benefit from HT
Also my 7700k runs 10c hotter under load with HT than without at the same clock.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Resources are extremely important to games which is why the 4C4T processors are faster then the 4c8t processors.
More total nonsense posted by the same usual suspect, who also obviously doesn't have a clue about how hyperthreading works. Please post some -trustworthy- benchmarks where a 4c/4t processor beats a 4c/8t one. I'm waiting (not holding my breath though, so take your time). We are talking about the same frequency of course, not some liquid nitrogen I5 which will only survive one test vs a stock cooler I7.
So why do people turn off HT for gaming? Maybe because a core running full speed is better then one split?
What advantage is there to disabling part of a core? Is that really worse than not using it?
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
Unless it conflicts with your power management settings, which when set to "Power Saver" or other similar plans will try to park cores and leave them parked for power savings.
1) It is possible to detect if a CPU is hyperthreading or not, but is not typically done, because....
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
This is true about hyperthreading. What the two previous posters have said is not. Programming wise, there's absolutely no difference in coding for multi- and hyperthreading, because it's the same thing software side, it's used exactly the same way.
Most games try to limit the number of threads, the more threads you have the more complex the code and it is much harder to debug. Some logic works well with lots of threads, games generally do not, hence my questioning the need for gaming rigs to have an I7 in them. More real cores are far better than Intel's hyperthreading crutch.
Looks like press freeze lifts on February 28th along with release. AMD seems to be going for a hard release compared to the soft release of other hardware in the last few years. They have also said they are ramping up for widespread availability on release. More cores can scale well to certain workflows. Character positioning, calculating projectiles/collision, sending model information to the gpu, physics, and AI.
1) It is possible to detect if a CPU is hyperthreading or not, but is not typically done, because....
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
This is true about hyperthreading. What the two previous posters have said is not. Programming wise, there's absolutely no difference in coding for multi- and hyperthreading, because it's the same thing software side, it's used exactly the same way.
Most games try to limit the number of threads, the more threads you have the more complex the code and it is much harder to debug. Some logic works well with lots of threads, games generally do not, hence my questioning the need for gaming rigs to have an I7 in them. More real cores are far better than Intel's hyperthreading crutch.
The first part is true of any program really. I don't know anyone who goes into the architecture part and says, let's jam as my threads as possible and while we're at it let's spin up some parallel processes too.
For the last part of your problem it doesn't matter if they're real or not. It matters if you need them. Four cores is sufficient if your multi-tasking load doesn't need more. If you're just running a game and a browser then no. Now if you're running your music app, the game, the browser (with 30 tabs), messenger, video capture, and a ton of other stuff at the same time and you're sloggy then maybe more logical cores will help.
There is no one size fits all answer. Generally non HT cpus are all that a typical person needs. Now if the competition starts using logical cores in all of their products then Intel might feel pressure to include them in more models, like the recent i3 with HT that's a 2600k replacement. It would only provide positive benefits to everyone if HT was present in CPUs except in a few fringe cases.
Well if AMD is offering more real cores, then your solution is easy, ditch the I7 for a 6+ AMD if the processing is close. Intel's CPU's with more than 4 cores are extremely over priced.
So, AMD just published video where they reveal everything. But themost interesting part is pricing. Top ryzen cpu will be selling for 499$ and it matches 1000$ cpu from intel. They came strong!!!
So, AMD just published video where they reveal everything. But themost interesting part is pricing. Top ryzen cpu will be selling for 499$ and it matches 1000$ cpu from intel. They came strong!!!
I hope its true. However don't always trust everything especially tech demo's.
So, AMD just published video where they reveal everything. But themost interesting part is pricing. Top ryzen cpu will be selling for 499$ and it matches 1000$ cpu from intel. They came strong!!!
I hope its true. However don't always trust everything especially tech demo's. But even if they are off. They won't be off by more then 20% and well thats just really good for them.
Comments
YUP, the game has to be written to take advantage of hyper threading and I don't know any game that is designed that way.
2) Hyperthreading will benefit anything that is coded to multithread well. You don't have to specifically target hypertheading for the hardware to provide benefit
3) If your game is coded to be multithreaded well, it will automatically take advantage of any benefits of hyperthreading, just as it would take advantage of true additional cores
Games can't take advantage of many additional cores, so it makes sense they also can't take advantage of hyperthreading. It has nothing to do with the sharing of resources, it has nothing to do with one core running two processes. It has everything to do with the way game engines and APIs are written, and the fact that symmetric algorithms that branch out well over multiple processing assets don't readily exist for every linear problem (and games are very much linear, as you have a frame due every xx millliseconds).
And that's going to be the same reason that an 8-core Ryzen won't significantly outplay a 4-core Ryzen, clock for clock, in gaming.
AMD is also publicly traded, but they are not a blue chip, so they can be more aggressive. A small loss that would trigger doom and gloom about Intel is just an 'adjustment' for AMD. While it would be nice for them to make money in one of the upcoming quarters, they don't need to because they are a 'rock star' in the eyes of Wall street. If AMD closed shop, Intel would become a trust and would be forced to break their company up into little pieces, a real disaster for Intel stockholders. Therefore Wall street is VERY invested in keeping AMD alive, which is why they never have problems getting refinanced.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
The issue imo is a bit elsewhere: What would you gain from higher threaded code?
Actually, any game using more than 4 threads at the same time is somehow taking advantage of a processor with more than 4 cores. Not to mention to bunch of system tasks running in the background.
But yeah, even today, games benefit more of raw single core speed than multi core speed. And since Intel combines both advantages, better single core performance AND better mutli-core (including logical cores) performance, it's normal it crushes AMD processors (before ZEN).
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/460497/how-many-cpu-cores-for-gaming/p4#MGqiUZFyQEXURVCG.99
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/
His point was that even in "the few games that make bad use of multithreading" a cpu with HT is no slower than a cpu without HT. The flip side being that in "the many games" that can make use of it HT will give a performance boost.
Anyway my post above was not so much about HT but about Intel and "budget" cpus. Previously Intel had "left out" HT to - maybe - make i3s more attractive. They have now reversed this position.
How this will play out remains to be seen but with (US) prices starting at c. $65 this, imo, is an assault on AMDs position in a "sub-sector" in which Intel arguably is not - or not as - "dominant".
Manufacturers if they wish will now be able to buy one motherboard if they wish and create a "range" of PCs - manufacturers like commonality. And they would get the "Intel inside" tag as well for marketing.
And people who want to build a budget PC today with an upgrade option to a more powerful Intel cpu downstream.
Could AMD cut their prices? Absolutely. It will make it harder for them to price Ryzen as "cheaply" as they might otherwise have done. No company can survive long term on razor thin margins across its entire product range.
That's what filmoret is confusing.
Multithreaded software has existed for decades. The entire "big deal" about Windows 95 was that it was the first Microsoft Consumer OS to really support preemptive multitheading (there were other OSes before it, OS/2 for example, but none as widely used). Windows 95 ran before there were even multi-core consumer processors (and extremely few multi-processor SMP machines at the consumer level). So don't confuse threads with cores.
The software that I OC for, gets no benefit from HT
Also my 7700k runs 10c hotter under load with HT than without at the same clock.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Many years ago, Vista mishandled hyperthreading. If you had two cores plus hyperthreading, and had two threads, Vista would sometimes put both threads on the same core and leave the other idle. This is slower than putting one thread on each core. Windows 7 fixed this, and is aware of hyperthreading, so if it has two threads busy, it will put them on different cores.
More cores can scale well to certain workflows. Character positioning, calculating projectiles/collision, sending model information to the gpu, physics, and AI.