I've heard people say that i7 (and quads in general) feels "smoother" in both Windows and games. Can anyone quantify what is happening in the microarchitecture, PCI-E subsystem, southbridge, memory controller etc to explain this? Or is it just purchase-justifying?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
What does "smoother" really mean?
- Thread starter Orangey
- Start date
Most of the time, I'm sure its just a fresh install of windows that is giving the perceived improvement.
I recently setup 2008R2 on a dual Xeon X5550, so that's 16 logical cores, 96GB Memory etc. And I also setup 2008R2 on a crappy £500 HP DL120 server (Intel E2160) - From a Windows desktop perspective, there really wasnt any difference speedwise.
I recently setup 2008R2 on a dual Xeon X5550, so that's 16 logical cores, 96GB Memory etc. And I also setup 2008R2 on a crappy £500 HP DL120 server (Intel E2160) - From a Windows desktop perspective, there really wasnt any difference speedwise.
nah you get the smoother thing on the phenom setups in game 
dunno tech reason .
tested same games i7 at 4.o and p2 955 at 3.7 same res same games same card p2 quad was " smoother in games "
love to actually know why but that is how it is.
dunno tech reason . tested same games i7 at 4.o and p2 955 at 3.7 same res same games same card p2 quad was " smoother in games "
love to actually know why but that is how it is.
I think the biggest thing i found with i7 that is was more consistant than my dual core, my FPS average out higher and in benchmarks dont drop as low, i had a dual clocked at 3.3ghz. I know that when i am making DVDs it is so much faster and im still able to play games and other stuff at the same time. I suppose it depends on how much you are loading onto your CPU, if you have all background programs off you probably wont notice any difference with you system.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Smoother is being said because you have the ability to push more threads, At any given time windows has a LOT of separate process's, all with a separate thread going on. Open up task manager and it will tell you how many processes there are. For me, 58 currently, with two using significant cpu power, but not full.
The thing is windows needs to constantly do little things, as do many apps, and every now and then they'll all want to do them at the same time and have to wait in order to be done, so sometimes you open up a new IE page and it just hangs for a second before the cpu can push another new thread through. A quad gives you more cores, and the ability to push more threads through, so theres less of a bottle neck and less times it hangs while waiting for something to start working.
If you never do anything but have one IE page open and never do anything else at the same time, you'd never see a difference, if you have multiple pages, programs and video open, maybe a game too, a quad will feel quite a bit smoother with a lot less hanging.
As for in game when at full use, ARchitecturally, the i7 is capable of pushing more data in best case scenarios so when the gpu isn't being maxed and is always waiting on CPU data to draw the next frame, the i7 usually ends up giving higher max framerates in games. When the gpu is at max load though, the cpu being able to push more data isn't a useful features, the system is waiting on the gpu there, not the CPU. At this stage maxing out the gpu is most important, lots of people have commented that AMD systems can feel smoother in these situations, which can mean marginally higher minimum framerates on AMD systems. The reason, likely very slightly less latency in communication between the cpu and gpu. Most likely down to having the memory controller on die for more generations of chips, meaning more experience and tweaking. IN this case when you're maxing out the gpu when the GPU asks for data the ability to send for and receive a small amount of data faster is more important than being able to receive more data at a higher latency.
So the theory goes that i7 = higher max framerate, but a little lower minimum framerates. However the difference between a minimum of 20 and 22, is FAR more noticeable than the difference between the maximum framerate of 100 and 120fps. The max offers no more smoothness, especially on a 60hz lcd, the minimum is very noticeable though.
The thing is windows needs to constantly do little things, as do many apps, and every now and then they'll all want to do them at the same time and have to wait in order to be done, so sometimes you open up a new IE page and it just hangs for a second before the cpu can push another new thread through. A quad gives you more cores, and the ability to push more threads through, so theres less of a bottle neck and less times it hangs while waiting for something to start working.
If you never do anything but have one IE page open and never do anything else at the same time, you'd never see a difference, if you have multiple pages, programs and video open, maybe a game too, a quad will feel quite a bit smoother with a lot less hanging.
As for in game when at full use, ARchitecturally, the i7 is capable of pushing more data in best case scenarios so when the gpu isn't being maxed and is always waiting on CPU data to draw the next frame, the i7 usually ends up giving higher max framerates in games. When the gpu is at max load though, the cpu being able to push more data isn't a useful features, the system is waiting on the gpu there, not the CPU. At this stage maxing out the gpu is most important, lots of people have commented that AMD systems can feel smoother in these situations, which can mean marginally higher minimum framerates on AMD systems. The reason, likely very slightly less latency in communication between the cpu and gpu. Most likely down to having the memory controller on die for more generations of chips, meaning more experience and tweaking. IN this case when you're maxing out the gpu when the GPU asks for data the ability to send for and receive a small amount of data faster is more important than being able to receive more data at a higher latency.
So the theory goes that i7 = higher max framerate, but a little lower minimum framerates. However the difference between a minimum of 20 and 22, is FAR more noticeable than the difference between the maximum framerate of 100 and 120fps. The max offers no more smoothness, especially on a 60hz lcd, the minimum is very noticeable though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
i for one found this very useful and very well explained. thanks for that, hope others find it as usefull.
It could stem from windows vista, as vista had an inability to tell the difference between a logical core (one from the i7s hyper threading) and a physical one. Windows 7 corrects this but the i7's were released last year so it couldve came from that, the phenom dosent have hyper threading so vista would always use a physical core with the phenom whereas with an i7 it would use a mix of physical and the slower logical cores in vista, maybe slowing things down.
Hello Orangey,
I'm not sure if I use the term *smoother* myself? . . . I have said many times the AMD chips (and any chip with an IMC) feel *Snappier* though!
There are two types of appreciable speed that I am aware of when using a modern PC, one is the RAW-Processing power and the other is System-Latency . . . I believe the RAW power makes itself felt by knocking minutes/hours of a processor intensive task such as Video-Encoding, 3D-Rendering and also by FPS in *very* demanding games etc, Raw Power is good but I don't feel it is that useful during daily operation of the PC unless your sitting there rendering etc 24/7
The *Snappier* feel I am trying to describe could also be called Responsive, Nippy etc a similar feeling to how Windows is when first installed. It would seem that anyone who can perceived the speed difference between a normal system and a low latency system without running a benchmark is affectionately being called . . . an Android-In-Disguise
The Latency figure I am talking about can be quantified/measured by software such as Lavalys *Everest* and is one of the only figures in performance computing where less is more! (oh that and Price £££ of course)
Now one mistake I think some people may be making is thinking that a reduction in Nano-Seconds is a singular event i.e it happens once every second but afaik this impossibly small speed reduction is applied to the many thousands & millions of transactions that happen every second . . . it soon adds up . . . I am happy to hear what anyone has to say about this as I am not 100% how the scenario works and is applied but I am 100% I can feel the difference so I have been trying to get more understanding of the physical process that is taken place . . .
A Low Latency system is a pleasure to use and gives the impression of *Speed* i.e. most people when operating said machine will comment how nice the computer is, so quick etc . . . this Low Latency will be more obvious to Max-Clickers like myself who blaze around folders, opening images, closing images, opening documents etc . . . for people that work quick it's a pleasure as there is less *Lag* in-between you thinking about something and then that thing happening . . .
It's possible to tweak the LGA775 platform to make it lower latency but that takes some knowledge and the right hardware (Fast Memory, low tRD etc) but any processor with an Integrated Memory Controller (I.M.C) has a massive advantage in this respect . . . such as the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 and the AMD® Athlon II™/Phenom II™ as they are pretty much low latency right out the box!
I'm not sure if I use the term *smoother* myself? . . . I have said many times the AMD chips (and any chip with an IMC) feel *Snappier* though!
There are two types of appreciable speed that I am aware of when using a modern PC, one is the RAW-Processing power and the other is System-Latency . . . I believe the RAW power makes itself felt by knocking minutes/hours of a processor intensive task such as Video-Encoding, 3D-Rendering and also by FPS in *very* demanding games etc, Raw Power is good but I don't feel it is that useful during daily operation of the PC unless your sitting there rendering etc 24/7
The *Snappier* feel I am trying to describe could also be called Responsive, Nippy etc a similar feeling to how Windows is when first installed. It would seem that anyone who can perceived the speed difference between a normal system and a low latency system without running a benchmark is affectionately being called . . . an Android-In-Disguise
The Latency figure I am talking about can be quantified/measured by software such as Lavalys *Everest* and is one of the only figures in performance computing where less is more! (oh that and Price £££ of course)
Now one mistake I think some people may be making is thinking that a reduction in Nano-Seconds is a singular event i.e it happens once every second but afaik this impossibly small speed reduction is applied to the many thousands & millions of transactions that happen every second . . . it soon adds up . . . I am happy to hear what anyone has to say about this as I am not 100% how the scenario works and is applied but I am 100% I can feel the difference so I have been trying to get more understanding of the physical process that is taken place . . .
A Low Latency system is a pleasure to use and gives the impression of *Speed* i.e. most people when operating said machine will comment how nice the computer is, so quick etc . . . this Low Latency will be more obvious to Max-Clickers like myself who blaze around folders, opening images, closing images, opening documents etc . . . for people that work quick it's a pleasure as there is less *Lag* in-between you thinking about something and then that thing happening . . .
It's possible to tweak the LGA775 platform to make it lower latency but that takes some knowledge and the right hardware (Fast Memory, low tRD etc) but any processor with an Integrated Memory Controller (I.M.C) has a massive advantage in this respect . . . such as the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 and the AMD® Athlon II™/Phenom II™ as they are pretty much low latency right out the box!
Last edited:
If you don't already have an ssd Wayne, you really, really want one.
Core i3 unfortunately moved the memory controller to the gpu die, leaving memory latency worse than the rest of Nehalem though still marginally better than 775.
Anyway, I'm convinced. Lower latency => smoother, I'll keep on trying to get below cas6. Although very low latency with low processing power will just mean it starts the process quickly, then takes ages to finish it. That's nearly as frustrating as waiting for it to begin.
Core i3 unfortunately moved the memory controller to the gpu die, leaving memory latency worse than the rest of Nehalem though still marginally better than 775.
Anyway, I'm convinced. Lower latency => smoother, I'll keep on trying to get below cas6. Although very low latency with low processing power will just mean it starts the process quickly, then takes ages to finish it. That's nearly as frustrating as waiting for it to begin.
"Smoothness"
My interuptation of this would be: Absence of Perceivable System Bottlenecks . . . which is possible with just about any modern computer using half decent hardware that has been tweaked/adjusted/fine-tuned so the whole system is *Balanced* . . . even something as small as a dodgy or incorrectly installed driver can impact this . . . so many variables!
It's not a word I use myself? but I do see it used by a lot of other forum members, particular from people that upgraded from a dual-core to a quad-core? . . . I can't tell the difference between a dual/tri/quad core outside of RAW-Power scenarios . . .
That's the great thing about the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 . . . it seems you get the benefit of RAW-Power combined with Low-Latency . . . throw in the *HUGE* memory bandwidth that Intel® DDR3 gives you and you got yourself a really serious subsystem . . . of course the one and only disadvantage to this is the high price premium £££ you have to pay but for those with the cash and a really serious workflow the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 makes a lot of sense . . . . for those people with more *modest* needs and a smaller budget the AMD® chips would give a *psedo* Core™ i5/i7 feel in day to day operations but you just may have to wait an extra 5/10/15 minutes for a large processor intensive task to complete.
Re: SSD's yes your right! . . . . I do really want one but they are just a bit too expensive for me right now although by summer 2010 I hope we have some good 80GB units for under £100, that would be really sweet!
My interuptation of this would be: Absence of Perceivable System Bottlenecks . . . which is possible with just about any modern computer using half decent hardware that has been tweaked/adjusted/fine-tuned so the whole system is *Balanced* . . . even something as small as a dodgy or incorrectly installed driver can impact this . . . so many variables!
It's not a word I use myself? but I do see it used by a lot of other forum members, particular from people that upgraded from a dual-core to a quad-core? . . . I can't tell the difference between a dual/tri/quad core outside of RAW-Power scenarios . . .
Yes I read as much although it didn't impact the benchies too much I wonder how they *feel* to use?
That's the great thing about the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 . . . it seems you get the benefit of RAW-Power combined with Low-Latency . . . throw in the *HUGE* memory bandwidth that Intel® DDR3 gives you and you got yourself a really serious subsystem . . . of course the one and only disadvantage to this is the high price premium £££ you have to pay but for those with the cash and a really serious workflow the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 makes a lot of sense . . . . for those people with more *modest* needs and a smaller budget the AMD® chips would give a *psedo* Core™ i5/i7 feel in day to day operations but you just may have to wait an extra 5/10/15 minutes for a large processor intensive task to complete.
Re: SSD's yes your right! . . . . I do really want one but they are just a bit too expensive for me right now although by summer 2010 I hope we have some good 80GB units for under £100, that would be really sweet!
Regarding SSD's, I got a pair for my xmas from the missus, and out of all the upgrades I did over the last year, the SSD's gave me the biggest overall performance increase.
I don't know if I would describe this as "smoother", I'd say that things feel "snappier", like apps and games load much faster than they did when I was using mechanical drives, and startup times are under 20 seconds now, whereas on my old Raptors boot times were close to a minute..
I don't know if I would describe this as "smoother", I'd say that things feel "snappier", like apps and games load much faster than they did when I was using mechanical drives, and startup times are under 20 seconds now, whereas on my old Raptors boot times were close to a minute..