Hyperthreaded games

Alphane · 12 Jan 2012 at 22:26

Now the general advice I'm getting in Hardware regarding a gaming rig is go for an i5 as games don't use hyperthreading.

This makes me wonder though will games soon be developed to take advantage of hyperthreading or is it just something that isn't neccasery in that kind of software?

RomanNose · 12 Jan 2012 at 22:28

Maybe some do, I don't know. It's kind of unnecessary as in this day and age it's the gpu that is the limiting factor.

Alphane · 12 Jan 2012 at 23:26

You see a lot of the gaming I do is strategy sims like hearts of iron 3, this has the most basic user interface but can 'chug' because of all the calculations going on.

Will hyperthreading be useful in such a case.

I feel in some 'build' and 'sim' type games hitting your FPS target isn't always going to be the limiting factor for smooth gameplay, would others agree, or have I misunderstood the subject ?

FrenchTart · 12 Jan 2012 at 23:30

Hyperthreading will give you a benefit in games that are well multithreaded. Currently most games are only multithreaded 'well enough' to take advantage of two cores though, with newer games often taking advantage of four. An i7 will gain performance in some cases where the game can take advantage of 8 (four cores, multiplied by two for the hyperthreading) threads. The extra hyperthreaded threads will not perform at the same level as a full extra core so you're looking at quite a modest performance increase over 4 non-hyperthreading cores and only in very specialist cases.

edit:

Games with intensive physics or AI calculations are often the ones that can benefit from extra cores. FPS games sometimes do (Frostbite engine, for instance) but as I alluded to above, unless you're consistently playing the one or two games where HT is valuable (or using the types of applications (A LOT) where it is valuable) then you're wasting your money paying extra for HT.

Alphane · 12 Jan 2012 at 23:36

So it is currently an implementation issue as to how the software is written. Fair enough Cheers

233 · 12 Jan 2012 at 23:37

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/

FrenchTart · 12 Jan 2012 at 23:38

Alphane said:
So it is currently an implementation issue as to how the software is written. Fair enough Cheers

Yes. But basically think of it as the general multithreading issue with software. Threading an application well is difficult and although hardware manufacturers and retailers like to make us believe that we should buy all the latest multicore stuff, software will take some time to catch up.

The first quad core machines came out years and years ago but we're only just now getting to the point where it's starting to be a problem to not have quad core for gaming.

With an i5 you've got a quad core machine and it will be a long, long time before you'll need something more powerful - and by then the same CPU with hyperthreading probably won't be much better off as HT really doesn't add that much extra performance.

Alphane · 13 Jan 2012 at 00:53

Foxtrot26 said:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/

Interesting article especially regarding turn times of stratergy games.

I am still a little confused on the subject though as if we compare the two chips metioned on a benchmarking sight, the games all seem to be a lot better with the 4 core intel ?????

Benchmark

FrenchTart · 13 Jan 2012 at 00:59

Alphane said:
Interesting article especially regarding turn times of stratergy games.

I am still a little confused on the subject though as if we compare the two chips metioned on a benchmarking sight, the games all seem to be a lot better with the 4 core intel ?????

Benchmark

It's fair to assume that Intel i7 chips have better IPC (and hence performance) than an equivalent speed AMD chip.

In that comparison you also have a 2.8ghz AMD chip vs a 3.33ghz Intel chip, so the gap will be even larger.

The thing you need to compare is price versus performance. The AMD chip will be a *lot* cheaper than the Intel chip in that comparison, and will probably still perform acceptably. Things become less clear at the i5/etc range (I also have an i5 2500k btw - previously I had a 1055T, so not too different to the AMD chip in that link) as the price of the Intel chips isn't quite so much more than the equivalent AMD chips.