Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Core i7 Hyperthreading hurting performance in games??

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    40

    Core i7 Hyperthreading hurting performance in games??

    I recently found out that there is speculation that 8 cores of the Core i7 may actually be hurting game performance and that turning hyperthreading off actually helps performance in some games.

    Link:
    http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-cor....html?doc=6160


    Are games just not optimised to run on more than 4 cores? Is it the OS (Vista 64)?
    Anyone with knowledge on this subject help out?




    Gaming Rig: EVGA X58, Core i7 920, EVGA GTX 295+, 3GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz Ram, Raptor HDDs

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Georgia, Tbilisi
    Posts
    195
    It is not surprise, coz many of games are optimized still on 2 cores and you have there 4X2


    Core i7 920 <|> DFI LANPARTY UT X58 T3eH8 <|> OCZ Platinium 3GB DDR3 CL7 1600Mhz <|> ZOTAC GTX260 c216 <|> Ultra120 2X Noctua 1300RPM <|> Gigabyte ODIN PRO 800W <|> Samsung 275T 27" PVA





  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,938
    I'm a pretty serious gamer lol, and I've used HT on since I built this i7 beast. Not once have I noticed a deficit in performance. This is just a few games that I play though. Crysis Warhead, FC2, COD5, COD4 and a bit of HL2 and it's episodes...but they all run butter smooth. Some games might not like it, but I have yet to find one.
    GB 790XTA UD4
    GSkill Pi Black 2000 Cas9
    ASUS 4870
    Enermax Revolution 1050+





    http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=67661

  4. #4
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by 1337633k View Post
    I recently found out that there is speculation that 8 cores of the Core i7 may actually be hurting game performance and that turning hyperthreading off actually helps performance in some games.

    Link:
    http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-cor....html?doc=6160


    Are games just not optimised to run on more than 4 cores? Is it the OS (Vista 64)?
    Anyone with knowledge on this subject help out?
    I noticed some odd behaviour in TF2, when i use HT and have 8 core enabled it theres sometimes a bit stuttering, if all the 8 cores are loaded in the background (boinc) it becomes more noticable.

    BUT if i set affinity for TF2/HL2 only to 4 core or less its smooth as a baby butt.

    Imho thats either a problem of the OS (using vista ultimate 64) or TF2 itself, that has problems. I dont notices such behaviour in crysis or L4D, but that dont surprises me much, cause L4D uses a new HL2 engien which supports multithreading much better then the "older" TF2 engien.

    Btw. i wouldn't be surprised if you would get the same performance, when you set the affinity for games to 4 cores (even with HT enabled) and you would get the same score as with HT disabled.
    Last edited by Hornet331; 01-07-2009 at 06:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    40
    Shaun White Snowboarding will not run with hyperthreading enabled.

    This is the only game I've found so far. Granted Shaun White is a poor console port, but it is a new game.




    Gaming Rig: EVGA X58, Core i7 920, EVGA GTX 295+, 3GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz Ram, Raptor HDDs

  6. #6
    PI in the face
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,083
    IMO, crysis bench they are within the margin of change, and the way far cry 2 is so damn wonky with x2s I would need to see more. Maybe some minimum numbers included as well which the HT ON in crysis is higher
    Quote Originally Posted by L0ud View Post
    So many opinions and so few screenshots

  7. #7
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    912
    I can't notice anything weird in TF2, L4D or GTA IV.

    L4D loads all the threads nicely when hosting a local server (given that the dedicated servers are useless this is actually a good solution). Who said we had no use for quads..

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    175
    is it possible that windows is allocating the cores wrong?

    IE its optimized for 2 cores, however it can't tell the difference between a HT core, and a physical core? so it uses a physical and a logical core instead of 2 physical cores?
    2600k @ 4.5GHz || P8Z68V || 16GB Vengeance || 5850 || Crucial M4 || TJ-10BW || ST1000 || 2408WFP

    Heat

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Georgia, Tbilisi
    Posts
    195
    is it possible that windows is allocating the cores wrong?
    It should be true also, coz X58 hardware released recently and developpers are still working on softs optimization on it
    we have to wait a bit, think...


    Core i7 920 <|> DFI LANPARTY UT X58 T3eH8 <|> OCZ Platinium 3GB DDR3 CL7 1600Mhz <|> ZOTAC GTX260 c216 <|> Ultra120 2X Noctua 1300RPM <|> Gigabyte ODIN PRO 800W <|> Samsung 275T 27" PVA





  10. #10
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bulgaria, Varna
    Posts
    447
    There is no such thing as "wrong" core (in Nehalem's case). All the four cores in there are symmetrical in capabilities, a.k.a. SMP.
    What the OS kernel can do, for instance, is to spread active threads in a way so the physical resources being utilized at maximum, e.g. if there are four active threads, the OS will look at the CPU# index table (eight logical cores, w/ HT on) and assign each one thread to an index# in a way, that each physical core runs a single thread at a time:

    # [0-1] [2-3] [4-5] [6-7] -- optimal performance in a case of four active threads, where each thread is assigned to a CPU core and HT is generally not involved.

    # [0-1] [2-3] [4-5] [6-7] -- not optimal performance, where all the active threads now rely on two physical cores, virtualized through HT into four logical ones.

    Of course, the more active threads are in the pool, the less is possible to optimize the situation.

  11. #11
    PI in the face
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,083
    ^ this
    Quote Originally Posted by L0ud View Post
    So many opinions and so few screenshots

  12. #12
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    233

    Arrow

    check this clock to clock comparison (@3,7ghz)
    between
    Deneb, Agena, Bloomfield, Kenstfield, Yorkfield

    in the games benchmark section it does report weird fps drops when HT is on

    the thread is in Greek
    but besides the "google translate to English" icon on top of the page,
    the diagrams speak for themselves

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North USA
    Posts
    670
    I just finished my bevy of gaming tests. Numbers available upon request, but to sum it up:

    All things being equal, there is a less than 1% performance difference on average over a field of about 14 tests. The 1% performance sway is, however, consistent and in favor of HT OFF.
    Asus P6T-DLX V2 1104 & i7 920 @ 4116 1.32v(Windows Reported) 1.3375v (BIOS Set) 196x20(1) HT OFF
    6GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 3x2GB@ 7-7-7-24, 1.66v, 1568Mhz
    Sapphire 5870 @ 985/1245 1.2v
    X-Fi "Fatal1ty" & Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Speaks/Beyerdynamic DT-880 Pro (2005 Model) and a mini3 amp
    WD 150GB Raptor (Games) & 2x WD 640GB (System)
    PC Power & Cooling 750w
    Homebrew watercooling on CPU and GPU
    and the best monitor ever made + a Samsung 226CW + Dell P2210 for eyefinity
    Windows 7 Utimate x64

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Truckchase! View Post
    I just finished my bevy of gaming tests. Numbers available upon request, but to sum it up:

    All things being equal, there is a less than 1% performance difference on average over a field of about 14 tests. The 1% performance sway is, however, consistent and in favor of HT OFF.
    Thanks for testing!
    MAIN: 4770K 4.6 | Max VI Hero | 16GB 2400/C10 | H110 | 2 GTX670 FTW SLi | 2 840 Pro 256 R0 | SB Z | 750D | AX1200 | 305T | 8.1x64
    HTPC: 4670K 4.4 | Max VI Gene | 8GB 2133/C9 | NH-L9I | HD6450 | 840 Pro 128 | 2TB Red | GD05 | SSR-550RM | 70" | 8.1x64
    MEDIA: 4670K 4.4 | Gryphon | 8GB 1866/C9 | VX Black | HD4600 | 840 Pro 128 | 4 F4 HD204UI R5 | 550D | SSR-550RM | 245BW | 8.1x64

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,136
    oh wow... this is good info.. I am going to disable HT and clock my 920 up higher, just because of the temp benefit of having HT off.

    Gigabyte x58 UD5 / core i7 920 @ 3.8 / 6G ddr3 / 100G Patriot Inferno + 500G WD / gtx470 SLI watercooled / x-fi / 1KW enermax / 5760x1080 surround

    Gigabyte z68x-ud3-b3 / core i5 2400 @ 3.6 / 8G ddr3 / 120G Intel 510 + 120G Adata S599 + 2x 1T WD blue / Zotac gt430 / x-fi / 500w ocz / 1920x1200
    DFI pro875B / pressy 2.8 / 2g corsair xms pro / 6800gt agp / 150g raptor x / 500w ultra x-connect / lots of UV lighting / smiles
    MSI K7N2 Delta-L / Athlon xp2600+ / 1G ocz platinum / chaintech TNT2 / 2x Diamond Monster 3D II SLI / Audigy / more smiles

  16. #16
    Iron Within Iron Without
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    EU - Czech republic
    Posts
    1,123
    I wonder, if this is still the issue with W7's who know how to adress / load cores compared to Vista , which Did it the wrong way , meaning Vista did load core 1 2 3 4 , which were 2 virtual and 2 real compared to W7 that knows 2 4 6 & 8 are Virtual.

    Any heads up on this ?
    Sony PS3 | Nintendo Wii + Nintendo Wii Fit

    By Mercedes - Adventure Trips around Middle Europe in a Youngtimer | https://www.facebook.com/S.Mercedesem - Like Us, if you Like us that is

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •