• 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.

Will future games take advantage of HyperThreading?

Cythx

Cythx

Cythx

Associate
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
967
Was reading some IB reviews and came across these two sharts.

R96Nh.jpg


zE0TE.jpg


IIRC, the main difference between i5 and i7 is HyperThreading, which seem to be giving BF3 a significant boost as shown above.

Will we be seeing this more often? Wanna know if I should get an i7 instead of i5.

EDIT: Just noticed the i5 2500k score in BF3, that seems weird?
 
Thats probably SP which is entirely GPU bottleknecked and the 2500k doesn't have HT. CPU only comes into play in MP on BF3.
 
Cythx said:
Was reading some IB reviews and came across these two sharts.

R96Nh.jpg


zE0TE.jpg


IIRC, the main difference between i5 and i7 is HyperThreading, which seem to be giving BF3 a significant boost as shown above.

Will we be seeing this more often? Wanna know if I should get an i7 instead of i5.

EDIT: Just noticed the i5 2500k score in BF3, that seems weird?
Click to expand...

I'd say there's a typo there somewhere. Could be mixed up with 3570k @ 4.8? Would make more sense.
 
One of the poster chipachap noted performance increase in BF3 when he utilised 2700k's hyperthreading over 2500k which he sold iirc. He was running 680 sli and 2500k was overclocked to 4.8Ghz previously.
 
WingZero30 said:
One of the poster chipachap noted performance increase in BF3 when he utilised 2700k's hyperthreading over 2500k which he sold iirc. He was running 680 sli and 2500k was overclocked to 4.8Ghz previously.
Click to expand...

7970 Xfire, but the problem is the same with both :) I would however like to see 2X 7970/680 with 4.5Ghz 2700k pci-e 2.0 and 3770k @4.5Ghz pci-e 3.0 in a BF3 MP bench.
 
Must be bugged i said in the offical review thread this caught my eye.Not so much the Skyrm benchmark we could just say that ok overclocking gives 0 fps increase as the game has enough CPU power

BUT

The Battlefield 3 test is just weird.I mean every other CPU apart from 3570k can get 132FPS.Yet here we see the 3570k stuck on 95FPS.When it was overclocked to 4.8GHZ it still says 95FPS.

So how can this be? The 2500k gets 132FPS and has no Hyperthreading so whats going on? Is the 3570k bugged or did vortez make a huge fubar?
 
I have no idea if this helps but I've been following the development of Planetside 2 and the game developers are quite responsive to the community, too. I tweeted one of their coders (maybe the lead one?) asking whether the game would take advantage of multiple cores (and TXAA - I was interested :p) and his cryptic response was:

hmmm... acronyms and algorithms may come and go, but cores will only increase. vague enough? ;-)
Click to expand...

There's rumours of the next Xbox having like 16 cores and if console games start taking advantage of that many it seems silly to think PC games won't too. Although some of those 16 are supposedly devoted to Kinect.
 
That's my review lads and no i didn't make any mistakes - I double confirmed those results. :)

The 3570K that I used in the review was an ES but I shall be double checking results soon with Retail too.
 
Well, having gone from 2500K to 3820, BF3 definitely felt smoother. Don't think max fps was altered at all, but it seemed to maintain a more consistent frame rate without major drops when loads going on.
 
HT is not something that should be utalised as far as I am aware...

its a trick intel use to make poorly written Apps pile more instructions in that they normally would..

if the application was truely multi CPU aware the extra logic / silicon required for HT would be a hinderance...
 
SD2k said:
There's rumours of the next Xbox having like 16 cores and if console games start taking advantage of that many it seems silly to think PC games won't too. Although some of those 16 are supposedly devoted to Kinect.
Click to expand...

we dont need more general purpose CPU cores we need more powerful video cards with 100's of specilised cores and bizare data porcessing and moving abilities...

I bet the next xbox will have a low speed (ghz wise) intel or AMD cpu with a upper mid range standard amd/nvidia video chip.

video cards and CPUs are now so complex and advanced its just not possibly to "make a new chip" for a console as has been dont in the past.

glue a low speed quad with a mid range gfx and stick out a good dev kit, the devs can take full advantage of the hardware and make games that look as good as they do on a top end PC system costing £1500 but running on a £400 bit of kit...
 
mishima said:
That's my review lads and no i didn't make any mistakes - I double confirmed those results. :)

The 3570K that I used in the review was an ES but I shall be double checking results soon with Retail too.
Click to expand...

Ok mate well your review to me is basically saying that the i5 3570k is bugged with BF3 as look at the benchmark.A STOCK 2500k and every CPU has 131fps yet the 3570k is stuck on 95 and even when overclocked to 4800MHZ it still is stuck at 95fps?

How is that even possible? A 3.3GHZ 2500k is no way 1/3 faster than a 4.8GHZ i5 3570k.

Can you re run the test with BF3? Or explain to us as to why the fps never changed?
 
Last edited:
Was Vsync on in Skyrim? Seems to be the only way I can rationalize those results.

I'd also agree that the 3570k must be bugged in BF3 somehow to be 30% slower than a 2500k seeing as SP isn't at all CPU intensive it should be exactly the same as 2500k.
 
bump vortez need to reply to this :( I sent an email but have yet to get a response from them.

Im really thinking there is an error in BF3.Can i trust that review come tomorrow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom