Rocket lake leaks

[Grim5]

Is this actually a performance regression then, despite the IPC uplift? 10400F vs 5600X was big talk, but if Rocket Lake can't even keep up with Comet Lake...

there is indeed an ipc uplift but you only see the benefit in certain apps, not in games because integer performance didn't improve much or at all - comes down to clock speeds now, it comet lake would have to have higher clock speeds than comet lake

The IPC betterment can not offset the core count deficiencies - two cores and four threads less, Intel's processors also lack scalability with their threads - Ryzen scales better.

The core theory is a nice one but it fails to explain why there is a performance regression in older competitive games that are single thread bound - either the integer ipc has not changed or the effective clock speed is lower than comet lake or something else

 

[4K8KW10]

The core theory is a nice one but it fails to explain why there is a performance regression in older competitive games that are single thread bound - either the integer ipc has not changed or the effective clock speed is lower than comet lake or something else

The games don't use more than four cores - the reasons are political - because the main user base is mostly dominated by slow and old processors.
It is always nice to have a groundbreaking new state-of-the-art game such as the original Crysis but they no longer produce such games.

Modern games are crap.

To answer your question - I guess the core theory has nothing to do with it - the code simply doesn't utilise those areas of the chips which have the IPC.

It's like asking why you can not achieve a world record in 3DMark 2001 with the Radeon RX 6900 XT but instead much slower cards are faster in it.

 

[Roadrunner_668]

in another thread people were arguing blind that 4 cores is only good for office use or something wasnt here was it ? cos judging by the above post it is wrong even when it comes to games ha ha

 

[4K8KW10]

in another thread people were arguing blind that 4 cores is only good for office use or something wasnt here was it ? cos judging by the above post it is wrong even when it comes to games ha ha

Have you tried Cyberpunk 2077 with a quad core?

hint - https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-cpu-scaling-benchmarks

 

[Raiden85]

I agree, 4 cores have had their day and for current modern demanding games 6 cores is really the absolute minimum now going forward, 8 or more ideal.

 

[Grim5]

in another thread people were arguing blind that 4 cores is only good for office use or something wasnt here was it ? cos judging by the above post it is wrong even when it comes to games ha ha

4 cores is fine for the office as long as it's a modern 4 core with high clocks and high ipc. The older 4 cores like the 3770k are very long in the tooth now, I've actually got a 6700k and it's quite slow, the cpu frequently gets up to 100% usage while working with large data sets and makes multi tasking impossible

 

[DeathStorm]

I agree, 4 cores have had their day and for current modern demanding games 6 cores is really the absolute minimum now going forward, 8 or more ideal.

X number of cores is not good or bad. The type of load you have should dictate what you need.

Am I going to worry about having more cores for older games at high resolutions? Probably not.

Newer games at lower resolutions? Sure, that makes sense.

 

[Roadrunner_668]

4 cores is fine for the office as long as it's a modern 4 core with high clocks and high ipc. The older 4 cores like the 3770k are very long in the tooth now, I've actually got a 6700k and it's quite slow, the cpu frequently gets up to 100% usage while working with large data sets and makes multi tasking impossible

for office use older quad cores will still be absolutely fine most offices arent 3d modelling or encoding video !

for an office pc the most important thing is an ssd really even an old i5 750 or something with an ssd would work fine for most office work

i wouldnt necessarily want to use my core 2 duo but with a little ssd it still chugs along ok and thats positively ancient ha ha

Have you tried Cyberpunk 2077 with a quad core?

hint - https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-cpu-scaling-benchmarks

i dont think you can use a rushed underdeveloped game as a benchmark really ha ha but I did say "most" games

 

[Rroff]

i dont think you can use a rushed underdeveloped game as a benchmark really ha ha but I did say "most" games

At the same time the nature of that game, even better optimised, will utilise more than 4 core 8 threads - even more so if they actually ever remotely get around to adding some of the features they claimed would be in the game like the 1000 odd NPCs with their own AI, etc. rather than the dumb crowds that just wander around aimlessly right now.

 

[Roadrunner_668]

fair enough ! but I still think saying it cant do more than office work is a bit much when you can still play all sorts of games on ultra with high frame rates ! they are clearly stil lvery capable even if not as much as one with twice the cores

 

[Rroff]

fair enough ! but I still think saying it cant do more than office work is a bit much when you can still play all sorts of games on ultra with high frame rates ! they are clearly stil lvery capable even if not as much as one with twice the cores

I play all kind of games with a 4 core 8 thread i7 (secondary system) and 6 core 12 thread (Xeon) CPU and only CP2077 really has any problems with the 4 core 8 thread - though you definite benefit having the extra threads - 4 core 4 thread will struggle a lot in many newer games now.

 

[Roadrunner_668]

I play all kind of games with a 4 core 8 thread i7 (secondary system) and 6 core 12 thread (Xeon) CPU and only CP2077 really has any problems with the 4 core 8 thread - though you definite benefit having the extra threads - 4 core 4 thread will struggle a lot in many newer games now.

fair enough !

i wonder also how much difference there is between 4 core 8 thread 4 core 4 thread and 8 core 8 thread

i thought hyperthreading was quite efficient !

 

[LePhuronn]

fair enough !

i wonder also how much difference there is between 4 core 8 thread 4 core 4 thread and 8 core 8 thread

i thought hyperthreading was quite efficient !

Real cores will always be better than SMT, so 8c/8t will be the top dog in your list there, of course assuming all those cores are the same. Intel's Hyperthreading isn't super fantastic so the uplift of 4c/8t over 4c/4t isn't as much as you'd think (and also workload dependent). AMD's SMT is supposedly a lot better, but even then 4c/8t won't match 8c/8t

 

[Roadrunner_668]

wont match it of course but would be curious to see the difference

i can probably google this

ill do that

 

[LePhuronn]

8700K running a load of Ubuntu tests. Presumably Windows performance will be a little lower, because y'know Windows...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-ht-2018&num=1

Roughly 30% uplift with HT?

 

[Rroff]

Real cores will always be better than SMT, so 8c/8t will be the top dog in your list there, of course assuming all those cores are the same. Intel's Hyperthreading isn't super fantastic so the uplift of 4c/8t over 4c/4t isn't as much as you'd think (and also workload dependent). AMD's SMT is supposedly a lot better, but even then 4c/8t won't match 8c/8t

It isn't always about the performance - in some cases just being able to offload some of the worker threads etc. seems to result in a significantly smoother game especially if coupled with higher refresh - 60Hz vsync tends to mask some of it and/or put less load on the CPU anyway.

 

[rustyk21]

Real cores will always be better than SMT, so 8c/8t will be the top dog in your list there, of course assuming all those cores are the same. Intel's Hyperthreading isn't super fantastic so the uplift of 4c/8t over 4c/4t isn't as much as you'd think (and also workload dependent). AMD's SMT is supposedly a lot better, but even then 4c/8t won't match 8c/8t

Also, as you've probably seen, in certain cases hyperthreading introduces a performance deficit. I suppose it just depends on scheduler efficiency, as sometimes it can introduce extra latency.

My understanding is that HT just helps to keep the physical cores busy doing extra work. As you say, all things being equal, the number of cores is clearly more important. HT just mitigates the effects of software inefficiency (which is a common scenario).

 

[Rroff]

Also, as you've probably seen, in certain cases hyperthreading introduces a performance deficit. I suppose it just depends on scheduler efficiency, as sometimes it can introduce extra latency.

My understanding is that HT just helps to keep the physical cores busy doing extra work. As you say, all things being equal, the number of cores is clearly more important. HT just mitigates the effects of software inefficiency (which is a common scenario).

All else being equal if you aren't actually using the HT capabilities you lose around 5% performance and get a slight latency penalty but the usefulness generally vastly offsets that. If you solely play a game that only uses up to the number of physical cores your CPU has and trying to wring the last bit of performance and latency out of the system then turning it off has benefit.

Personally though I rarely see a situation where turning it off makes sense.

 

[rustyk21]

All else being equal if you aren't actually using the HT capabilities you lose around 5% performance and get a slight latency penalty but the usefulness generally vastly offsets that. If you solely play a game that only uses up to the number of physical cores your CPU has and trying to wring the last bit of performance and latency out of the system then turning it off has benefit.

Personally though I rarely see a situation where turning it off makes sense.

Exactly, and I don't know where you got 5% from but from everything I've seen that sounds about right. There is only the odd outlier case where turning it off makes sense. Probaby just a few games at high refresh rates.

 

[Rroff]

Exactly, and I don't know where you got 5% from but from everything I've seen that sounds about right. There is only the odd outlier case where turning it off makes sense. Probaby just a few games at high refresh rates.

Awhile back I tested it with some video encoding software with a variety of codecs, some multi-threaded compiling tools I use for game modding and some older games.

Some stuff even though it would happily load up 8 threads on my 4820K would run about 5% faster with HT disabled, other stuff only used 1-4 cores and again was faster with HT off. But by and large most newer software and games benefit from having HT on in some cases hugely.