# Gaming benchmarks: Core i7 6700K hyperthreading test



## Artas1984 (Jan 21, 2016)

Greetings all!

According to my previous benchmark Intel Ivy Bridge Core i7 processor offers no hyper-threading (HT) performance in gaming. On the contrary, HT turned on on the Core i7 3770 did hurt the performance slightly when compared to just the 4 physical cores of Core i7 3770. This time i've put the Intel Skylake Core i7 6700K to the shooting wall for "execution". This test can not be compared to any other tests i've made before, based on my profile, due to new NVIDIA drivers, updated game versions, different PC, some different game settings, some different testing methods.

I've tested 21 game on 1920x1080 resolution with all graphical settings set on maximum, turned on, except: no anti-aliasing was used. Some exclusive NVIDIA features in games like Far Cry 4 and Witcher 3 were turned off. Physics effects were turned on, except for NVIDIA's exclusively based Physx effects, which were turned off.

Some games have their own build-in benchmarks, while for others i used Fraps custom 15 seconds benchmarks.

TEST SETUP

Intel Core i7 6700K 4 - 4.2 GHz
Asus Maximus 8 Ranger
Kingston Hyperx Fury 2X8 GB DDR4 2133 MHz C14
Patriot Pyro 120 GB sata3 Windows drive
WD Red 2 TB sata3 game drive
Gigabyte GeForce GTX780 Ti GHz Edition 3 GB

Windows 7 Pro 64 bit
NVIDIA Forceware 361.43





For those who prefer video presentation:










Let's begin.

*Alan Wake American Nightmare *





There is no difference between i7 mode and i5 mode.

*Arma 3*





There is no difference between i7 mode and i5 mode in this most demanding FPS game i've ever tested.

*Batman Arkham Origins*





I've deleted maximum FPS bar, since it was pulling over 300 and was irrelative.

*Battlefield 4*





There is almost no difference between i7 mode and i5 mode.

*Bioshock Infinite *





There is no difference between i7 mode and i5 mode.
*
Call of Duty Advanced Warfare *





HT slightly decreases performance.

*Company of Heroes 2*





HT clearly hurts performance in this very demanding RTS

*Crysis 3*





There is quite a notable performance drop with HT on.

*Dragon Age Inquisition*





HT hurts minimal frame rate performance, while average and maximum remain the same.

*F1 2015*





HT slightly decreases performance.

*Far Cry 4*





There is no difference between i7 mode and i5 mode.

*Hard Reset *





Once again HT hurts minimal frame rate performance, while average and maximum remain competent.

*Hitman Absolution*





HT only improves maximum frame rate performance in this game - the same pattern was observed with Core i7 3770.

*Max Payne 3*





HT slightly decreases performance.

*Metro Last Light Redux*





Once again HT hurts minimal frame rate performance the most in this demanding game - the the same pattern was observed with Core i7 3770.

*Rainbow Six Siege*





There is a very small decrease in performance with HT on.

*Serious Sam 3*





HT decreases performance slightly.

*Starcraft 2 Legacy of the Void*





HT decreases performance slightly, yet constantly.

*Tomb Raider *





Like in Hitman Absolution, HT slightly increases maximum frame rates.

*Watch Dogs*





The performance drop with HT in this game is just too big to justify Core i7 over Core i5.

*Witcher 3 Wild Hunt*





Let's call it a draw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I've made these benchmarks 5  times in a row and they are as real as you can get.

*CONCLUSIONS

Ever since i've got my first Nehalem Core i7 920, i've noticed no performance improvement in games with hyper-threading turned on. I have "cementified" these observations with testing my Core i7 3770  and now i do the same with a Core i7 6700K at my friends place. It's a pattern that continues for 6 years now... HT is not worthless in games however - it delivers awesome performance in Core i3 processors, but not in Core i7. Also HT might significantly improve online game performance, but that is not my domain.

1. Intel Core i7 HT offers no improvement in single player games.

2. Intel Core i7 HT slightly hurts gaming performance in most of the tested single player games.

I wish HT would improve gaming performance, but it actually hurts!!! It's a big disappointment and my friend made a mistake by replacing his Core i5 3570K with Core i7 6700K, because all he does is game, and nothing more.*


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jan 21, 2016)

Interesting, wonder what a 5820k or 5960x would get. Have a feeling that it will be less of a impact.

If it were not for the fact that i am away from my main computer this weekend i would check it my self.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 21, 2016)

It really doesn't do anything in gaming...This was a known thing.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 21, 2016)

Artas1984 said:


> HT is not worthless in games however - it delivers awesome performance in Core i3 processors



It was nice to see this mentioned as a footnote, as these chips are the one area I have observed a definate benefit to HT in gaming


----------



## xfia (Jan 21, 2016)

tell your friend to buy 2 more monitors to match the ht. then they can play a game, do homework and watch a movie at the same time.


----------



## Estaric (Jan 21, 2016)

Its cool that it was mentioned an i3 benifits from ht in gaming. I still feel more likely to buy an i7 in the future than an i5 due to better future proofing.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 21, 2016)

Guys, i hope you won't ask me to make this test again on the lowest resolution and quality settings - i will not do this. I already did such thing in my previous Core i7 3770 test and it made no difference! Judging on that conclusion i see no point in doing the same thing here, especially now that i have upgraded my video card from GTX760 OC to both GTX980 G1 Gaming and GTX780 Ti GHz Edition, which are equally powerful and have no trouble maxing games out at 1080P. Besides, these tests take forever to set up and make...


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 21, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> It was nice to see this mentioned as a footnote, as these chips are the one area I have observed a definate benefit to HT in gaming



2 threads vs. 4 must be some magic threshold.  

The i7 has more cache over the i5, (8 vs 6), so there may be the difference.

It'd be really cool to see the 3770 (4 threads) vs. the 3570.  But hats off to taking the time to test and publish these results, nice job.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2016)

Artas1984 said:


> I wish HT would improve gaming performance, but it actually hurts!!! It's a big disappointment and my friend made a mistake by replacing his Core i5 3570K with Core i7 6700K, because all he does is game, and nothing more.


Did you compare a 3570K with a 6700K? Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like you made an assumption there? Don't forget, there is a several % increase in per clock performance . Perhaps that would be made up with the higher stock clock of the 6700K, or even at the same clock speeds because of cache? I just don't think that assumption should be made without actually testing it. Sounds logical, but... needs tested.

I apologize if I missed this information.




Sasqui said:


> It'd be really cool to see the 3770 (4 threads) vs. the 3570.


Maybe the 2MB of cache makes a difference.. though, I doubt it.





DEAR LORD is photobucket slow (for me) to load.................. Oy.


----------



## alucasa (Jan 21, 2016)

I thought it was known that HT doesn't really benefit in games with exception of i3.

But HT is a huge factor to me because HT makes around at least 20% difference in rendering time.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2016)

alucasa said:


> I thought it was known that HT doesn't really benefit in games with exception of i3.


It sure is. So much effort for an already tested and proven point...


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 21, 2016)

alucasa said:


> But HT is a huge factor to me because HT makes around at least 20% difference in rendering time.



This is (obviously) all application specific.  The ~10% overhead of HT vs. 100% more core would surely make a difference when the additional core(s) are being hit.

More Cowbell!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 21, 2016)

end words: 
a 6600K is always the top choice over a 6700K if you intend to game only (well even in some other task the 6600K is close to the 6700K )
and HT is useless in gaming except on 2 core type i3 

well nothing new but glad to see it confirmed


----------



## trog100 (Jan 21, 2016)

so the games tested dont use more than four threads as would be expected.. with four real cores HT is redundant.. interesting to see that it seems to cause a small performance hit though.. maybe i should turn mine off.. 

it would allow for higher clocks or lower temps when things that do use 8 threads  are being used (as is mostly the case) as stability and load testers..

i did try turning my HT off.. running stuff like prime95 does show much lower temps.. if all a person does is game.. maybe HT is better turned off..

trog


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 21, 2016)

trog100 said:


> if all a person does is game.. maybe HT is better turned off..
> 
> trog


if all a person do is game, they'd better off with a i5-XXXXK/non K and spare nearly 209chf (were i live in case of 6600K to 6700K ) than HT turned off  that's a pretty expensive turnoff


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2016)

Indeed. This is typical advice on many forums.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 21, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> if all a person do is game, they'd better off with a i5-XXXXK/non K and spare nearly 209chf (were i live in case of 6600K to 6700K ) than HT turned off  that's a pretty expensive turnoff


 
true but i was thinking about folks that already had the I7 chip.. 

just thinking aloud that was all.. having forked out all that extra dosh to get HT it would take some extra large balls to turn it off.. he he

trog


----------



## qubit (Jan 22, 2016)

@Artas1984 Interesting how HT helps when the CPU has less cores and it kinda makes sense, too.

I suggest running one of those games with the following CPU settings in the BIOS:

- 4 cores enabled, no HT

- 2 cores enabled, plus HT

Logic dictates that the 4 full cores should beat the 2+HT, but there might possibly be an anomaly somewhere and the difference may not be that much either. Be interesting to see the result.

Finally, if you want to check the impact of the CPU alone on framerate, bench at something like 1024x768 or even 800x600 if the game will let you and perhaps turn some of the quality settings down too, so the performance isn't being masked by GPU bottlenecks.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 22, 2016)

running abnormally low resolutions just to get abnormally high frame rates to imply that one cpu is better for gaming than another never has made the slightest sense to me even though it is common practise.. 

nobody actually plays games like this so what is the point.. 

trog


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2016)

There are some exceptions to this:
1: Crysis 3 uses more than 4 threads in the Jungle level (and only there afaik), so it does benefit from a i7 there. In a PCGH review some time ago (after the i7 patch that fixed the bug), i7 was clearly faster than i5 there. Also before patch the FX 8350 was faster than any other CPU. After patch i7 leads, behind it FX 8350 and i5 on par with eachother. 
2. Battlefield 4 needs much more CPU power in Multiplayer mode. The SP mode is basically irrelevant anyway and afaik all CPUs that have over 4 threads benefit from it in multiplayer mode. There was even a multi core patch that fixed performance on 6 core Phenoms + FX 8 cores. i7 4 core and especially 6 core went through the roof after patch. 
3. All games in multiplayer mode need more ressources, the OP already mentioned MMORPGS(or "online games").

So this is true, but there are exceptions. Also there are some SP games that use more than 4 threads too ... for a fact I know that GTA 5 and Fallout 4 do. Also I played GTA Online and it had a pretty high usage on my CPU and Fallout 4 in SP mode too (both games used all threads).


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 22, 2016)

Great work, that was a lot of time spent! 
Makes me feel better that I decided 6600k $164 from gift card.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jan 22, 2016)

why i3 HT can boost perf, and i7 HT hurt performance?
different HT tech or what?


----------



## qubit (Jan 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> running abnormally low resolutions just to get abnormally high frame rates to imply that one cpu is better for gaming than another never has made the slightest sense to me even though it is common practise..
> 
> nobody actually plays games like this so what is the point..
> 
> trog


To isolate the performance of the CPU from the graphics card to measure its true performance, as I explained. Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical example.

Graphics card is working at 1080p and max quality in a particular game and tops out at 70fps. You're testing 4 CPUs, each of which easily achieves 70fps in this game. Having the card bottleneck the performance therefore invalidates the test, as 70fps will be measured for all 4 CPUs. Hence, one has to take the strain off the card so that we get the true performance of the CPUs under test. If we set that graphics card to 800x600 and medium details it might well achieve 300fps or more in the game, thus lifting that bottleneck and giving a true result for the CPUs:

CPU A - 100fps
CPU B - 120fps
CPU C - 155fps
CPU D - 180fps

On top of this, these framerates are not especially high nowadays, particularly with the new 165Hz monitors on the market. On top of that, all you need is a more demanding game or a performance drop somewhere in the game and suddenly CPU D becomes very desirable to keep that minimum framerate up. Remember, it's the minimum framerate that matters, not the maximum framerate.

It would be different if one were testing whole system performance. Then, sure, run the PC with everything maxed out, but that's not what's being tested here.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> why i3 HT can boost perf, and i7 HT hurt performance?
> different HT tech or what?


No. Same HTT. It's just that most games only need 4 threads/4 cores and a 4 core i7 has 8 threads out of 4 cores, it means your power gets divided, if the game starts to use the HTT thread instead of the real thread from the core itself. The i3 on the other hand does benefit from HTT because some games need more than 2 threads to function properly, this essentially helps the i3 be a viable gaming processor, while CPUs like the Pentium Anniversary Edition without HTT and only 2 cores have problems in some games that won't start because it has too few threads/virtual cores, even if overclocked to 4,5 GHz and theoretically fast enough.

@trog:
What qubit said. And on top of that: it's for future proofing, maybe a Sandy Bridge - PC is as fast as a Skylake - PC in every game now, because its GPU limited, but in a few years when more CPU power is needed it starts to bottleneck the GPU. That's why they benchmark it low resolution so that it is CPU limited that you can see the real power of the CPU and what it can do if and when the power is needed.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 22, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Did you compare a 3570K with a 6700K? Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like you made an assumption there? Don't forget, there is a several % increase in per clock performance . Perhaps that would be made up with the higher stock clock of the 6700K, or even at the same clock speeds because of cache? I just don't think that assumption should be made without actually testing it. Sounds logical, but... needs tested.
> 
> I apologize if I missed this information.
> 
> ...



Don't have the direct comparison results, but 6700K was notably faster in some of the games than 3570K, that is true. I was referring to 6700K as being a disappointment for my friend, as it offered less performance than a Skylake Core i5 6600K "would have". He wasted a lot of money, and would have ended better with a Core i5 6600K cheaper. However, in most of the games, the difference from 3570K to 6700K was not that much obvious, his Core i5 3570K would have kept him happy for the rest of his video card warranty days at least.



EarthDog said:


> It sure is. So much effort for an already tested and proven point...




When i did a test with Core i7 3770, people told me to do that again with Core i7 6700K. This was not a case of "everybody knows Core i7 HT is worthless in games", because some folks believed, including me, that perhaps Skylake architecture would make a difference in games when it came to HT.



trog100 said:


> i did try turning my HT off.. running stuff like prime95 does show much lower temps.. if all a person does is game.. maybe HT is better turned off..
> 
> trog



Thank you for this test. I was wondering about that myself.



qubit said:


> @Artas1984 Interesting how HT helps when the CPU has less cores and it kinda makes sense, too.
> 
> I suggest running one of those games with the following CPU settings in the BIOS:
> 
> ...



First setting is what i did already: 4 cores, no HT.
Second setting would leave 2 physical cores, and 4 virtual cores - but that would prove nothing. We already saw that single player games do not use more that 4 cores, whether it is 2 physical and 2 virtual (Core i3) or just 4 physical (Core i5). Do you agree?

Also, if i am to turn the graphical settings to the lowest, i would be getting ridiculous amounts of FPS. Look at how much FPS i am getting at the *maximum* settings already with GTX780 Ti GHz: 70-80 FPS in Crysis 3 and Far Cry 4, over 200 FPS in Call of Duty Advanced Warfare and Bioshock Infinite, over 150 FPS in Battlefield 4, Hitman Absolution, Max Payne 3 and Hard Reset.

If you would like to know how the situation would change with all settings set to minimum, just look at my Core i7 3770 HT benchmark: in that test i did disable all the settings later on:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...rthreading-test-20-games-tested.216466/page-2

Post 39. GTX760 was bottle-necking me, so i had to lower everything to see would the benchmark look any different, but it did not...


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2016)

Artas1984 said:


> When i did a test with Core i7 3770, people told me to do that again with Core i7 6700K. This was not a case of "everybody knows Core i7 HT is worthless in games", because some folks believed, including me, that perhaps Skylake architecture would make a difference in games when it came to HT.


Why should it? It's the same HTT just that the Skylake has a better IPC than the Ivy Bridge CPU you tested before. The problems are the games that are still mostly programmed to use 4 cores/4 threads and Skylake doesn't change this fact. What your friend did was maybe wrong now, but he has a bit more future proofing that when games use/need more than 4 threads he will profit from it and not need to buy a CPU so fast again. I did the same thing btw. when I chose to buy the i7 I know for a fact that 4 cores/4 threads are enough for games and will be mostly in future too, but I wanted a bit more future proofing so I bough a i7 not an i5. And so far I'm not disappointed, as I said in my first post in this thread, there are some games that use more than 4 threads and then you will profit from it. DX12 will help too, as it can utilize many more cores than DX11 does, on top of the fact that games with support for more than 4 threads are starting to get more.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 22, 2016)

For Arma 3 is that using the default Malloc or a custom one like tbb4malloc_bi ?,  not noticed much difference since win 7 and onward though.

EDIT: Might be different for Arma 3 once the addon comes out.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 22, 2016)

Delta6326 said:


> Great work, that was a lot of time spent!
> Makes me feel better that I decided 6600k $164 from gift card.


plus it match the name of your previous CPU  Q6600 vs 6600K REVERSED! wait ... Q and K errr...


----------



## trog100 (Jan 22, 2016)

for as long as i can remember good PC gaming as always been about graphics card power.. whilst its possible to set up low resolution high frame rate scenarios showing how a particular (more powerful) cpu can benefit the gaming experience in reality its still all down to graphics card power..

will this change in the future.. some seem to automatically think it will.. i cant see any reason why it should though.. more so because the future seems to suggest a move to higher resolutions which will lower frame rates and make the whole gaming experience even more gpu dependant..

my own gaming system (not 4k through choice) is about as good as it gets using a single monitor.. turning my HT off which in effect is going I5 from I7 wont alter the gaming experience one bit.. i have an overclocked I7 cpu because i can not because i need it..

i am pretty certain the gaming future will still be all about gpu power pretty much like it always has been.. i see nothing that is going to change this..  others may but i dont.. 

trog


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> for as long as i can remember good PC gaming as always been about graphics card power..


not in mmo's though  well Blade and soul kinda hurt my fps when in crowded area (or any other mmorpg or fps or mmo ...) i guess i could use a 6700K sometime 



trog100 said:


> my own gaming system (not 4k through choice) is about as good as it gets using single monitor.. turning my HT off which in effect is going I5 from I7 wont alter the gaming experience one bit.. i have an overclocked I7 cpu because i can not because i need it..


aye pretty much understandable point of view


----------



## trog100 (Jan 22, 2016)

yes i do believe its possible for huge battles with a million things going on at once to bring both gpu and cpu to their knees.. luckily  low fps is tolerable in such situations.. but yes there are some games that really do benefit from more cpu cores and more cpu speed.. not that many though.. 

i remember playing supreme commander from long ago.. but the whole gaming scenario seems to be in conflict between high frame rates on one hand and silly high resolutions on the other..

my cpu can be bought for £250 quid.. on the other hand my graphics cards and monitor cost me £1800 quid.. its pretty clear what my priorities are.. 

trog

ps.. i am currently playing metal gear solids phantom pain.. a console port with a built in 60 fps frame cap.. around 30% gpu power and 50% cpu power is being used fully maxed out at 1440..


----------



## Moofachuka (Jan 22, 2016)

Btw, does anyone know if 6 core gaming is better with HT on vs HT off?  Thanks!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 22, 2016)

Moofachuka said:


> Btw, does anyone know if 6 core gaming is better with HT on vs HT off?  Thanks!



Funny you should say that...

i just played MOTOGP 15 with HT on and off with my 6 core.(Wendys Nightmare).........no difference at all .......   95-100 fps on ultra.

HT OFF





HT ON




Xeon X5670 @4.4ghz
EVGA GTX 680 


If "She" takes an afternoon nap i will test GTA V too


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2016)

Artas1984 said:


> When i did a test with Core i7 3770, people told me to do that again with Core i7 6700K. This was not a case of "everybody knows Core i7 HT is worthless in games", because some folks believed, including me, that perhaps Skylake architecture would make a difference in games when it came to HT.


Im sorry you believed that. It wouldn't make a difference as the HT in 6700K works the same way as it did in SB/IB/Haswell, etc...........

May I suggest to ask the forums next time to save your self some time and effort. I thank you sincerely, but, you proved things already proven.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 22, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Im sorry you believed that. It wouldn't make a difference as the HT in 6700K works the same way as it did in SB/IB/Haswell, etc...........
> 
> May I suggest to ask the forums next time to save your self some time and effort. I thank you sincerely, but, you proved things already proven.



I would actually have been a lot more interested in how FPS run on an FX series chip with half the "cores" disabled vs all 8 enabled.


----------



## Moofachuka (Jan 22, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Funny you should say that...
> 
> i just played MOTOGP 15 with HT on and off with my 6 core.(Wendys Nightmare).........no difference at all .......   95-100 fps on ultra.
> 
> ...



Maybe your GPU was the bottleneck.  As you mentioned, please try GTA or other games tested by OP.  I might try it if I have time this weekend.... and when "SHE" takes a nap haha!  Thanks!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> for as long as i can remember good PC gaming as always been about graphics card power.



Not entirely. RTS games are famous for needing alot of CPU power.  Additionally, RPG's for instance, that have alot happening on the screen (for example numerous NPC's all doing different things) will normally drive up cpu use. 

Finally, CPU power is useful for raising minimum frame rates.  So, while GPU is very much the primary player, it's not all about the GPU only.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 22, 2016)

"Finally, CPU power is useful for raising minimum frame rates."

that would depend on what is causing the lower frame rates.. in the "million ai controlled things going on at once" situation if its the cpu more cpu power will help..

but in the vast majority of cases where the gpu is the bottleneck i dont think its true.. a faster cpu wont effect the lower frame rates in the slightest.. a faster gpu will..

to be honest i dont have any games that work my cpu hard or anywhere near its full potential.. mostly its just cruising whilst gaming..

trog


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> to be honest i dont have any games that work my cpu hard or anywhere near its full potential.. mostly its just cruising whilst gaming..



Grab a Total War game as an example and you'll see how the only bottleneck is the CPU! 

You can test the minimum frame rate assist yourself. Run all the benchmarks at stock cpu speed, and then run again with the CPU overclocked quite a bit.  That applies to almost any kind of game that requires alot of GPU power.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 23, 2016)

Moofachuka said:


> Maybe your GPU was the bottleneck. As you mentioned, please try GTA or other games tested by OP.




I see no bottleneck,  95-100 fps, my gpu running at 100 %,.......... no bottleneck here mate.  My monitor refreshes at 60hz.

I see a well balanced, cheap pc delivering fantastic fps. in the games i play.  and so far having 6 cores or 12 threads enabled makes no apparent difference.

Excuse me while i persecute someone mindlessly for a while in the name of science on GTAV and test whether  on my system with my settings HT makes a difference.


here we are

GTA V HT on


 

GTA V HT OFF


 

I played the same parts of the game FPS remained between 50-80 on my settings whether HT was on or not.

Tmrw i will try Fallout 4 and Project Cars


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 23, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It really doesn't do anything in gaming...This was a known thing.



It is a benefit in select instances...  but they are rare.

Example:  Running a few 24/7 game servers in the background, like I do.  HT definitely helps pull more out of my quad core there and reserve a little "oomph" for CPU intensive games.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 23, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> It is a benefit in select instances...  but they are rare.
> 
> Example:  Running a few 24/7 game servers in the background, like I do.  HT definitely helps pull more out of my quad core there and reserve a little "oomph" for CPU intensive games.



i would imaging it would help if prime95 was being run in the background as well.. he he..

trog


----------



## Kanan (Jan 23, 2016)

trog100 said:


> for as long as i can remember good PC gaming as always been about graphics card power.. whilst its possible to set up low resolution high frame rate scenarios showing how a particular (more powerful) cpu can benefit the gaming experience in reality its still all down to graphics card power..


Nobody denied that. I don't think you understood my post or that of qubit very well. Driving a low resolution is ways to test how strong a CPU really is - but if you are GPU bottlenecked you never know, maybe just Min FPS differ, but nothing else because GPU limits max / avg fps most of the time.



> will this change in the future.. some seem to automatically think it will.. i cant see any reason why it should though.. more so because the future seems to suggest a move to higher resolutions which will lower frame rates and make the whole gaming experience even more gpu dependant..


Nobody denied that also. But a good CPU will be needed still, you can't forever use a Sandy Bridge or a Haswell, after some time it will be so slow that it will bottleneck the game or the GPU. Saying that - Skylake just has more reserves than Haswell has, it's maybe good for 1-2 years more (at best).



> my own gaming system (not 4k through choice) is about as good as it gets using a single monitor.. turning my HT off which in effect is going I5 from I7 wont alter the gaming experience one bit.. i have an overclocked I7 cpu because i can not because i need it..


Try games that profit from HT. Of course 4 core/4thread optimized games don't care about HTT or even have diminishing returns because they are confused by the added threads of a i7. As I explained earlier, they don't use the real cores threads always then, but change to the HT threads also what results in a decrease of performance.



> i am pretty certain the gaming future will still be all about gpu power pretty much like it always has been.. i see nothing that is going to change this..  others may but i dont..
> 
> trog


Man, really, nobody denied that.  haha



> I would actually have been a lot more interested in how FPS run on an FX series chip with half the "cores" disabled vs all 8 enabled.


Depends. If its a game that needs 4 cores it will be a lot worse, because essentially the "8" cores of an FX are only 4 real ones. Windows 7 (after patch, internally at least) / 8 / 10 list the FX processors as 2core/4 thread, 3 core/6 thread and 4 core/8 thread respectable - disabling 4 cores @ FX 8350 would then essentially mean going back to 2 cores 4 threads - meaning bad performance in CPU heavy games. My uncle has a A10 7850K it's really listed as "2 cores 4 threads" in the task manager. True thing. Edit: Microsoft did this so that Windows can utilize the FX cores better by using the 4 modules (4 real cores) first, and only after that the added stripped core in every module (4 modules each 2 integer units = "8 cores"). FX's are somewhat a thing of headaches haha. I wish AMD would've done real cores + HT back then and skipped that FX trash.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 23, 2016)

i do understand your point kanan.. i just think that from a gaming perspective there is an over emphasis on cpu power to the point where artificial scenarios that bear no relationship to reality have be created even to show up the difference between one cpu and another.. i think it creates a false impression..

threads like this which to some prove  what everybody  already knows are very useful to those that aint so sure.. 

my own view is that if enough money is being chucked at a system to get good gpu power it might as well have a high end cpu as well.. but when a system is being built to a limited budget (most are) it isnt necessary to pump money into the high end cpu.. a lesser one will do the job just as well..

the same applies to any gaming upgrade.. buy a better gpu leave the rest alone.. the latest and greatest gpu will noticeable improve your games.. the latest and greatest cpu wont.. 

trog


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 23, 2016)

Fallout 4 on my pc with HT on and off.

Ive got HT on my cpu so i leave it on for normal use. The cpu appears to get a little bit warmer with it on but the FPS remain the same. 60fps on Ultra with gods rays on high.


HT Off






HT On






When i game i leave everything else running, all my web pages everything, for the sake of this excersize i only loaded Fraps, HWmon and the game.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 23, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i do understand your point kanan.. i just think that from a gaming perspective there is an over emphasis on cpu power to the point where artificial scenarios that bear no relationship to reality have be created even to show up the difference between one cpu and another.. i think it creates a false impression..
> 
> threads like this which to some prove  what everybody  already knows are very useful to those that aint so sure..
> 
> ...


Well if you really understand my point, you'd understand that it doesn't at all create a false impression, it does what it's intended too - show the difference in CPU strength to other generations or CPU types. But I get your point too. I think we all agree on that GPUs are more important than CPUs since many years. We don't live in the 90s or early 2000s anymore I guess. 



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Fallout 4 on my pc with HT on and off.
> 
> Ive got HT on my cpu so i leave it on for normal use. The cpu appears to get a little bit warmer with it on but the FPS remain the same. 60fps on Ultra with gods rays on high.
> 
> ...


Good choice, Fallout 4 is one of the few games that utilize more than 4 threads or 4 cores properly. Exactly what I meant btw with my posts earlier - there are games supporting HTT/hexa cores/over 4 threads, Fallout 4 is one of them. I tested it too, my i7 3820 @ 4.3 GHz (HTT on) performed better than my friends i5 4670K @ 4.1 GHz - kinda proves my point with the HTT not always being bad - thing.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 23, 2016)

"Well if you really understand my point, you'd understand that it doesn't at all create a false impression,"

the false impression it creates (to the unwise) is that the cpu matters more in gaming situations than it really does.. at least that is how i see it and always have done..

when you have to run (never used in the real world) extra low resolutions to even show up what difference there is should make my point.. mind you the reviewers do have to fill their pages up with something.. even nonsense.. 

they run some games to supposedly create a real world gaming situation.. but then bugger it all up by running a resolution that in the real world world never be used.. some make this clear but most dont.. 

tis a bit like running 3dmark but using iceworld rather than firestike whilst trying to suggest the test means something useful in the real world to a gamer.. 

so called real world gaming tests should use real world gaming resolutions.. this way they would produce real world results.. and we all know what those would be.. in simple terms the latest and greatest cpu wont make the slightest difference to the gaming experience.. keep your money in your pocket.. he he

trog


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 23, 2016)

trog100 said:


> in simple terms the latest and greatest cpu wont make the slightest difference to the gaming experience.. keep your money in your pocket.. he he



This just shows you have ignored what i said earlier and are the all-knowing PC expert.  I bow before thee....


----------



## xfia (Jan 23, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> This just shows you have ignored what i said earlier and are tge all-knowing PC expert.  I bow before thee....


Yeah thats true..  I mean maybe in a few years there will be more truth in the statement but programming is diverse to say the least.


----------



## Moofachuka (Jan 23, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I see no bottleneck,  95-100 fps, my gpu running at 100 %,.......... no bottleneck here mate.  My monitor refreshes at 60hz.
> 
> I see a well balanced, cheap pc delivering fantastic fps. in the games i play.  and so far having 6 cores or 12 threads enabled makes no apparent difference.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the test.  I tested DOTA 2 with and without HT and it also didn't make a difference.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> "Well if you really understand my point, you'd understand that it doesn't at all create a false impression,"
> 
> the false impression it creates (to the unwise) is that the cpu matters more in gaming situations than it really does.. at least that is how i see it and always have done..


Just ignore what we say, I don't think you are well informed - go and read some reviews and get some enlightenment if you don't believe us. You are just holding to your wrong informations, I guess because of your ego, or because you don't want to upgrade your CPU anytime soon - well basically the same thing (ego). 



> when you have to run (never used in the real world) extra low resolutions to even show up what difference there is should make my point.. mind you the reviewers do have to fill their pages up with something.. even nonsense..


The only nonsense I can see here, is from you. You simply don't understand it and all the websites doing it are wrong, and you are right. Sure. Ignorance / arrogance strong on your part. 



> they run some games to supposedly create a real world gaming situation.. but then bugger it all up by running a resolution that in the real world world never be used.. some make this clear but most dont..


You still don't understand it in the slightest. Well, alright. Last time I tried explaining it to you. 



> tis a bit like running 3dmark but using iceworld rather than firestike whilst trying to suggest the test means something useful in the real world to a gamer..


I give it up. ^^



> so called real world gaming tests should use real world gaming resolutions.. this way they would produce real world results.. and we all know what those would be.. in simple terms the latest and greatest cpu wont make the slightest difference to the gaming experience.. keep your money in your pocket.. he he
> 
> trog


You don't see the difference between theory and practice. They / we do. That's it. And you still don't get it. Np. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 24, 2016)

there is so much wrong in this thread I can't even quantify the stupid ...


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 24, 2016)

I have updated the thread with video presentation.

Trog, i want to hear no more comments from you, ok? You have made this thread into some kind of personal show of dissatisfaction, i am getting tired of opening my thread and seeing "Scott Pilgrim vs the World".


----------



## trog100 (Jan 24, 2016)

who the f-ck is scot pilgrim.. he he

but once a thread is open it is no longer your own private property Artas its open to member comment or at least it should be.. but i will respect your wishes and make no more comment in it.. 

being called ignorant by the ignorant aint much fun anyway.. 

consider me gone from your thread even though it was a good one..

this place is a little too tolerant of what could be called personal attacks and insults.. 

trog


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 24, 2016)

i have run my Xeon X5670 @4.4 ghz
in the following comibinations

2 core ht off
2 core ht on
4 core ht off
4 core ht on
6 core ht off
6 core ht on

MOTOGP 15 runs at 95-100 fps regardless.


2 Core HT on



 

2 Core HT OFF




If i have time i will do the same for GTA V.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 24, 2016)

I'm very lazy but for a quick check I ran a one minute run on BF4, MP, Dragon Valley (only me on server).

3930k @ 4.2Ghz
All setting maxed and at 150% DSR (4k effective)

*HT on*
Frames,  Time (ms),   Min,  Max,   Avg
  4656,      60000,         63,    89,    77.600

*HT off*
Frames,  Time (ms),   Min,  Max,    Avg
  4694,      60000,          57,    88,    78.233

Run consisted of flying Havoc heli between two caps, firing into water and through gap in trees for one minute each time.

I run a 980ti at 1500Mhz so the CPU does play 2nd fiddle.  I think the discussion really needs to centre around low end CPU's.  Obviously 12 threads is overkill, even in BF4 but when dropping core count to 2, perhaps that i3 discussion is more relevant. 

However, I don't think the OP can state HT on hurts frame rates without looking at the evidence more scientifically.  An explosion or any other physics derived effect will impact on frame rate by using CPU resources.  It's impossible to negate these variables without set, predefined benchmarks.  What is relevant is that HT does not help performance at a certain core count.  What would be great to know from game devs is the core optimisations for games.  

In years past, 'multi-core' started appearing on DVD packs.  It would be so much better to know if it was optimised for 1, 2, 4 or more cores.  Safe to say anyone that buys the next top end Broadwell E for gaming alone (at 10/20 cores/threads) needs to seriously think about giving their money to charity.


----------



## Artas1984 (Jan 24, 2016)

Kanan said:


> No. Same HTT. It's just that most games only need 4 threads/4 cores and a 4 core i7 has 8 threads out of 4 cores, it means your power gets divided, if the game starts to use the HTT thread instead of the real thread from the core itself.



That is the best (if a bit straightforward) answer that i could think of, that explains the loss of performance with HT turned on.

Trog, no hard feelings, it's just that your conversation with Kanan about the same stuff is getting pretty old, we need to change topics...



the54thvoid said:


> However, I don't think the OP can state HT on hurts frame rates without looking at the evidence more scientifically.  An explosion or any other physics derived effect will impact on frame rate by using CPU resources.  It's impossible to negate these variables without set, predefined benchmarks.  What is relevant is that HT does not help performance at a certain core count.  What would be great to know from game devs is the core optimisations for games.




Yes, exactly, you were right to correct me here.


----------



## pascal (Feb 11, 2016)

Awesome work Artas1984, thanks for the analysis across all those titles.


The art of writing multi-threaded software is still being perfected. As you likely know an HT core shares the same cache and execution unit of the physical core. Depending on what is being threaded the overall performance can degrade if the overhead cost of core sharing is higher than the output of the threads. This can be seen if you thread some basic integer arithmetic on real cores vs real cores + HT cores.

The developer can choose which cores they want their software to thread on (1 core, all cores, real cores only, or real core 1 and 2 and only HT core 4).

One could theorize that the games that don't reveal a performance delta when HT cores are toggled are threading only on real cores or are experiencing a bottleneck elsewhere.

[edit] remove article caused by backspacing + rewriting sentence fragment.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 12, 2016)

"Trog, no hard feelings, it's just that your conversation with Kanan about the same stuff is getting pretty old, we need to change topics.."

that old i have complexity forgotten about.. who is kanan.. he he 

in truth who gives a f-ck its all time passing waffle.. you take part in it or you dont.. 

trog


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 12, 2016)

trog100 said:


> in truth who gives a f-ck its all time passing waffle.




https://www.facebook.com/


----------



## Dethroy (Feb 12, 2016)

This debate is quite pointless.
Why would software that isn't optimized for the usage of more than 4 cores benefit from HT (exception being i3 obviously)?



trog100 said:


> for as long as i can remember good PC gaming as always been about graphics card power..


You must be rather young then.


----------



## ASOT (Feb 12, 2016)

For games 6600K is better choice,also cheaper..

I had 6700K and was not so happy with HT i switch to 6600K and OC

That 2 mb cache difference seems to less for 8 threads


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2016)

bumping a slightly older thread, as i've been doing testing myself with my new CPU with HT on/off in gaming (takes 10C off load temps, for no gaming loss) and i googled it leading me to here...


My question is: is FRAPS the problem here. It's basically recording the 3D and playing it back, and the CPU load may be entirely different to rendering it initially. Have you tested with in-game benchmarks where available to see differences there?

Not sure if i'm wording my concern correctly, anyone else able to expand on the idea?


----------



## Schmuckley (Jun 17, 2016)

Well...Time to turn HT off


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 17, 2016)

I paid the princely sum of 5 quid each for my threads........ so i am leaving mine on !!!


----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 17, 2016)

HT does a little in gaming if the game can figure out what to do with the extra threads.

Many buys the i5 bcs of the value to performance compared to the i7 and if u disable HT on the i7 and let both do 4ghz for a fine base clock with boot to 4.2ghz than it should be a question of the 6 vs 8mb cache catfight.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> HT does a little in gaming if the game can figure out what to do with the extra threads.
> 
> Many buys the i5 bcs of the value to performance compared to the i7 and if u disable HT on the i7 and let both do 4ghz for a fine base clock with boot to 4.2ghz than it should be a question of the 6 vs 8mb cache catfight.



i have a 100Mhz difference between my 3770k and 2600k, so that catfight is a daily occurence here


----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 17, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i have a 100Mhz difference between my 3770k and 2600k, so that catfight is a daily occurence here



but u r now also fighting with a 2. gen vs 3. gen cpu so there should be a difference even with that 100mhz difference


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> but u r now also fighting with a 2. gen vs 3. gen cpu so there should be a difference even with that 100mhz difference



PCI-E 3.0 and clocking the ram higher is about the extent of it, to stay on topic HT on and off has made zero noticeable difference.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 17, 2016)

I've always had HT enabled and never looked back. Didn't buy a hexa core to save power. Besides, HT does come into action a lot for 7zip that I do use to compress rather big data regularly.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> I've always had HT enabled and never looked back. Didn't buy a hexa core to save power. Besides, HT does come into action a lot for 7zip that I do use to compress rather big data regularly.




could you do a test with and without?

HT off
HT on, but 7 zip set to 4 cores (this alloes the HT threads to help with background tasks in the OS etc, much like you'd get with gaming)
HT on, 7 zip all cores


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 17, 2016)

*Tested on Core i7 5820K (6 physical cores, 12 max threads with HT) @ 4.5 GHz with 32GB 2400MHz DDR4 RAM with HT enabled and disabled for different scenarios.

6 Threads / 6 cores (HT OFF)*




*6 Threads / 6 Cores (HT ON)


 

12 Threads / 6 Cores (HT OFF)


 

12 Threads / 6 Cores (HT ON)


 

MADE TWO MORE FOR TEH LOLZ BEYOND AVAILABLE USABLE THREADS:

16 Threads / 6 Cores (HT ON)


 

18 Threads / 6 Cores (HT ON) (This is as high as RAM would allow me)


 
*


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2016)

PURDY NUMBERS!

thanks for those, i'll wrap my head around the results in the morning


----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 17, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> *18 Threads / 6 Cores (HT ON) (This is as high as RAM would allow me)
> View attachment 75514 *



How can a Hexa-core have 18 threads? 

what haxx do u use?


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 17, 2016)

That's threads utilized by the software. You can cram several threads onto one physical core. It is beneficial if cores aren't utilized 100% by one software thread. You don't gain anything if one software thread already occupies entire core. I've used this just to see how CPU with HT performs under absurd conditions when all cores are fully utilized and software tries to feed it even more work.

If you open up Task Manager, Performance tab you can see number of threads used by Windows and apps on it. 1160 at the moment on my system. But since basically all of them are just idling, they aren't causing any performance issues.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 18, 2016)

Interesting results and thank you for all your hard work.

Its the total opposite when it comes to AMD though, 4core vs 8core (depending on the game) you can see up to almost double FPS in games over a quad core. (Ive done the testing)


----------



## ViperXTR (Jun 18, 2016)

As an owner of an i3 2100 long ago, HT helps for this, specially in heavy/CPU hungry games back then like GTA4 (and even more so useful in emulators), disabling it causes lower framerate and noticeable stutters/lags. For i7, it's a different story


----------



## Mussels (Jun 18, 2016)

ViperXTR said:


> As an owner of an i3 2100 long ago, HT helps for this, specially in heavy/CPU hungry games back then like GTA4, disabling it causes lower framerate and noticeable stutters/lags. For i7, it's a different story


 i have an i3 here in one of these systems (forgot the model, 2xx0 something) and i'd never turn HT off on it. I wonder if its a hardware difference, or just that software is badly optimised for 4+ threads


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 18, 2016)

Mussels said:


> i have an i3 here in one of these systems (forgot the model, 2xx0 something) and i'd never turn HT off on it. I wonder if its a hardware difference, or just that software is badly optimised for 4+ threads


Sadly it's the latter.


----------



## Artas1984 (Aug 5, 2016)

Mussels said:


> bumping a slightly older thread, as i've been doing testing myself with my new CPU with HT on/off in gaming (takes 10C off load temps, for no gaming loss) and i googled it leading me to here...
> 
> 
> My question is: is FRAPS the problem here. It's basically recording the 3D and playing it back, and the CPU load may be entirely different to rendering it initially. Have you tested with in-game benchmarks where available to see differences there?
> ...



Fraps is not recording any 3D stuff. While benchmarking games, it only calculates the frames those are past-rendered, not pre-rendered. I've noticed that FPS does not change when fraps benchmark is on or of.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 6, 2016)

None of these are Vulkan/Direct3D 12.  If Hyperthreading helps in a game, it would be leveraging those APIs.


----------



## flapbunn (Oct 1, 2016)

Gaming on my 5960X in games like FC4  is significantly better with HT turned off


----------



## natr0n (Oct 1, 2016)

Yay for real cores.


----------



## Kanan (Oct 1, 2016)

flapbunn said:


> Gaming on my 5960X in games like FC4  is significantly better with HT turned off


Yes because 8 threads are easily enough for anything and 16 just too much. It's like divided power at times.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 1, 2016)

I have no issues with mine?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 2, 2016)

So this adequately shows why AMD can't at this moment beat Intel in IPC terms, because due to the advantage in thread dispatch that micro opps and it's cache provide, Intel utilises most if not all of a cores resources regardless of Ht , thread dispatch is their main bottleneck imho it's deciding a cores performance and regardless of Ht on or off it stays the same.
Just my opinion.


----------



## David Fallaha (Jan 25, 2017)

Brusfantomet said:


> Interesting, wonder what a 5820k or 5960x would get. Have a feeling that it will be less of a impact.
> 
> If it were not for the fact that i am away from my main computer this weekend i would check it my self.



jst reading this...have you checked?

if anything you need hyperthreading much less -i got big esp emulation boosts turning it, much smoother / less glitched framerates


----------



## David Fallaha (Jan 25, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I thought it was known that HT doesn't really benefit in games with exception of i3.
> 
> But HT is a huge factor to me because HT makes around at least 20% difference in rendering time.



-just wondering, if it's a single-socket Xeon you have (and so potentially overclockable) why not turn HT off and ramp your clockspeed (this i did to great effect)


----------



## Viruzz (May 12, 2017)

Thanks for benchmark.
But the issue with HT is rather strange, I always kept it off myself, 5820K user here, 6 core is more than enough for everything.
But as far as I understand there is difference of OS, ie Win7 is not good for HT, 8.1 is a bit better and Win10 is best available.

I found this guy on YouTube doing what everyone asked, he took 5820K and emulated every possible configuration: 2C/2T, 2C/4T, 4C/4T, 4C/8T, 6C/12T (except 6/6), he tested 3-4 games and they all got 1-2 fps increase in 6C/12T situation.


5820k @ 1.195v @ 4.2ghz (3.3ghz Cache ratio at 1.055v).
Asrock Fata1ity X99
Crucial DDR4 (4x4GB Sticks @ 2400mhz - 14-15-14-40 @ 1.21v)
GTX 970 @ 1600mhz / 1640mhz @ + 0.49v
256GB MX100 SSD
630 Watt X't Enermax PSU
*Win 8.1 Professional*












Now this guy tested 5830K @ 4.5Ghz with 2 cores disabled to simulated standard i7, he tested 4/4 and 4/8 situation and based on his benchmarks lots of games get lower FPS with HT on

This is Windows 8 test so again, no windows 10 Benchmarks yet

Full system specs
Intel i7 5930K overclocked to 4.5Ghz
MSI Gaming 7 X99A
Nvidia GTX 980Ti Inno 3D Reference
Nvidia GTX 980Ti Zotac Referecne
Drivers 361.43
32GB of Corsair Vengeance 2666Mhz DDR4
OCZ Agility 3 120GB SSD + 2TB Seagate Barracuda Storage
Corsair Graphite 780T Black
Corsair HX 1000i PSU
Corsair H110i GT cooler
Samsung 850 EVO 500GB
Samsung SM951 M.2 128GB PCIe 3.0 SSD
OCZ Agility 128GB SSD
Toshiba 3TB HDD


----------



## Caring1 (May 12, 2017)

Viruzz said:


> Now this guy tested 5830K @ 4.5Ghz with 2 cores disabled to simulated standard i7, he tested 4/4 and 4/8 situation and based on his benchmarks lots of games get lower FPS with HT on...


Watching the screen overlay it's clear with Hyperthreading on, the GPU has less load and a lower temperature. That to me shows the CPU is a bottleneck with no Hyperthreading enabled as the GPU works harder.


----------



## Viruzz (May 12, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Watching the screen overlay it's clear with Hyperthreading on, the GPU has less load and a lower temperature. That to me shows the CPU is a bottleneck with no Hyperthreading enabled as the GPU works harder.



I just rewtahced the video and I cant say that I noticed it, maybe here and there but the opposite can be said too. What I did notice is 30% lower total CPU load 75% vs 50% although it might be fake because it calculates all 8 cores and they dont have so much load.

The optimal situation would of been a software that can Disable/Enable HT in windows, so we could disable it when we game or dont need to lower the temps.
In my case, I game in 4K, so I can keep it enabled it wont affect the FPS at all since its GPU bound even with 1080Ti (I benched my 5820K CPU/Cache overclocked to 4.5Ghz vs Default settings and had identical FPS in 4K, ZERO difference), so I bet enabling HT wont reduce any FPS too, but what I dont want is unnecessary temp increase, so software to enable disable HT would be ideal.

I did some research and there is a way to have HT on for windows and day to day tasks and have it disabled for Games and programs you dont need many cores for.
The Build in Windows permanent solution is to create a Shortcut using Affinity command, said command can also launch a program in any priority, so we can one time create shortcut for game to lunch it with X cores and X priority.

The Freeware software option called Prio it can save your Affinity and priority among other things.

The paid "Gaming" solution is the 15$ 'CPUCores' app sold on steam, not only that it can disable HT for any program added to its database but it can set priority and "optimize" windows for gaming, people with weaker systems report 10-20% improvements.
The app can "isolate" windows services and background programs to separate chosen one-two cores, temporally unload/disable non system essential services and background apps.
Im not paying for it. (Personally as Avast user I rather enjoy the free gaming mode that comes with Avast, its rather nice to pre-choose programs and games and set power mode to high or balanced during load, most "game optimizesrs" ignore this function but for me its much more effective than all that crap they do, because day to day I use Balanced Power mode that also limits my CPU to 3.3Ghz max  to save power and avoid heating the room but when I game I switch to High performance mode that also locks the CPU to 4.5Ghz)


----------



## EarthDog (May 12, 2017)

Why bother...really...


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

So here's a really dumb question. Say you have a CPU with Hyperthreading or SMT on AMD Ryzen and you lock the game to a specific number of cores using the Windows Task Manager (or Process Hacker), can you negate the loss of performance with SMT enabled?

I'm assuming that the loss of performance is due to the fact that SMT creates virtual cores out of the remaining processing capacity of a real core that's not 100% used. Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?


----------



## Viruzz (May 12, 2017)

trparky said:


> So here's a really dumb question. Say you have a CPU with Hyperthreading or SMT on AMD Ryzen and you lock the game to a specific number of cores using the Windows Task Manager (or Process Hacker), can you negate the loss of performance with SMT enabled?
> 
> I'm assuming that the loss of performance is due to the fact that SMT creates virtual cores out of the remaining processing capacity of a real core that's not 100% used. Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?



Yes, thats exactly how you Soft "Disable" HT. In windows task manager cores come first and treads come second, if you have 8C/16T than its 0-7 real and 8 to 15HT
If you lock your game to the actual cores, its like if HT was disabled.

In my previous post I found a program that can remember your settings, do them once for your games and programs and thats it, you can have HT enabled for 7zip and video encoding and play games on real cores without HT penalty.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 12, 2017)

I have to think this is why Intel bumps stock clocks up on i7s. They know full well HT on their quad cores is not a sell at all for gamers.


----------



## gupsterg (May 14, 2017)

Viruzz said:


> Yes, thats exactly how you Soft "Disable" HT. In windows task manager cores come first and treads come second, if you have 8C/16T than its 0-7 real and 8 to 15HT
> If you lock your game to the actual cores, its like if HT was disabled.
> 
> In my previous post I found a program that can remember your settings, do them once for your games and programs and thats it, you can have HT enabled for 7zip and video encoding and play games on real cores without HT penalty.



Dunno about Intel as not had a chip from them with HT, but on Ryzen the odd cores are SMT and even real, link.


----------



## mouacyk (Aug 4, 2017)

Does anyone know of a benchmark that compares 6c/6t to 4c/8t in BF1?  I'm interested in frametime variance (smoothness) around 120-144hz.  I think the new Coffee Lake hexacores are going to be perfect for 144Hz(+) gaming, once you turn off HT since it is on a mean and lean platform unlike HEDT.  This is why for quad-threaded games, the 7700K is still king - low cache/memory latency = more responsiveness.

HT generally benefits unoptimized/unoptimizable code where there are lots of branch mis-predictions or memory stalls (production workloads).  Games in general, due to their real-time requirements, optimize away memory stalls and branching as much as possible already.  With HT on, the thread scheduler may over-commit game code for execution (biting off more than one can chew), which results in execution stalls, which manifest as frequent frametime variance.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 4, 2017)

If i disable HT, bf1 starts to stutter real bad


----------



## mouacyk (Aug 5, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> If i disable HT, bf1 starts to stutter real bad


Can you post the value you see for "Job Threads" when you type the following into the console:
Render.DrawScreenInfo 1


----------

