Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
At first I didn't really think that hyperthreading made that big of a difference, and a lot of people agreed, but after running some tests I value the i7 a lot higher than I did ever befotre. The tests I ran were actual video game tests, and they were not benchmarks, so the results that I got are real life results that you guys can actually see when playing games or doing other things(Well not as of now, but in the future)

After running a few tests in a few games, mainly GTA 4, with only 1 core activated. Yes just ONE core. And experimenting with different configurations, I can see that hyperthreading makes a HUGE difference in games. It's really underrated. It's so big of a difference that it could be the difference of a game not running at all to a game running with pretty good graphics(Even though not maxed out).

I tested GTA 4 mainly. I'm giving my GTA 4 results now, and the results for the other game in a later post. ow GTA 4 is patched with version 1.0.3.0 so most performance issues are gone. The only problem is that the shadows look a lot uglier when put to medium settings(but now we have the option to turn them off which looks pretty good), and a few minor graphical glitches.

Now first off here are the results I got with just one core with no hyperthreading or anything. My specs are in my sig. I used a stock clocked i7, the only overclocking that happens is the automatic turbo boost tand speed step technology that the i7 does automatically. Since I'm using only 1 core, the turboboost boosted my cpu to 2.93 GHz while playing this game with 1 core and one core with hyperthreading. Just think of that as my clockrate, and think of 2.79 as my clockrate when play with two or more physical cores activated.

I first played with everything at the minimum settings. Yes everything, that includes resolution. I ran the benchmark and I got an FPS average of 36, now the fps average in GTA 4 is about 10 fps higher than what you are actually getting in, plus there aren't many cars or pedestrians in the benchmark so when you play you'll probably receive worst performance. Now after the benchmark finished, I tried to load the actual game, I waited for 10 minutes, and the game never loaded so I never actually played to see what it would be like. Now, maybe if I had waited for a little longer, the game might have loaded up, but do you think that waiting for ten minutes everytime try to play is playable? I don't think so. Now this is with everything minimized out. Everything so there is just no way I could have tweaked the settings for it to load.
This was the total report I got

Statistics
Average FPS: 36.69
Duration: 37.29 sec
CPU Usage: 99%
System memory usage: 58%
Video memory usage: 54%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Texture Filter Quality: Low
View Distance: 1
Detail Distance: 1

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

Now just to test the benchmark I jack the settings up to what I normally play with

All in all the settings were either maxed out, or one setting away from being maxed out. The view distance slider is at 34, the detail distance slider is maxed, the traffic density is at 33% or 100% it's one of those since thats what I alternate between the two. 33% is what the console versions use. I also have shadow density at 1 or 16 depending on how I feel.

These are the results I got.

Statistics
Average FPS: 20.92
Duration: 36.91 sec
CPU Usage: 100%
System memory usage: 62%
Video memory usage: 93%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1600 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Texture Filter Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

Yes 20 fps. And thats what thw game says. You knows how low it really is. And of course the game never loaded.

Now lets look at the results that I get with hyperthreading enabled, with just one core. With hyperthreading I have 2 virtual cores, but only one actual core is activated. A lot of people say that it doesn't improve performance Because you are still on just one core. Even I believed that at one point.

My first benchmark was with everything minimized. I didn't think that hyperthreading would do anything since I had gotten some less than perfect results in other games when I tested earlier.

This is what I got.

Statistics
Average FPS: 52.12
Duration: 37.30 sec
CPU Usage: 96%
System memory usage: 60%
Video memory usage: 54%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Texture Filter Quality: Low
View Distance: 1
Detail Distance: 1

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

Yes 52 FPS on one core(with hyperthreading), in GTA 4. 52 FPS. It's just amazing that I got these types of frames. Even though hyperthreading is active, it's still just one lone core. So to get 52 FPS was a big surprise. So big of a surprise that I just had to check that again. With the second benchmark and everything on the same settings, I still got 50 FPS so no this wasn't a fluke. Now this would mean nothing if the game couldn't load so I tried playing an actual game in it. The game started pretty quickly. It wasn't ultra ultra fast, but you'd have to be an absolute liar or very unpatient to say that it loaded even just a little long. When I played the game, The game was actually running well. There weren't any problems with textures missing, no texture pop ups, no stuttering. Well there was a stutter here or there but it's really minor and it barely happened anyway. I played for a long time trying to see what the maximums I could get were and the minimums. I was able to get to the 70s and maybe even lower 80s when inside certain buildings, when out and about I normally got the 40s. and in extreme extreme action(100% traffic density in times square while blowing up every car in the rode with a granade or rocket launcher while getting in shootouts with the police and swat team) I got normally upper to mid 20s, I did get to 17 or something though, but it was never unplayable. All in all it was pretty smooth. The framerate were never a real problem when actually playing the game, and the game was definitely very playable as far as framerate goes. I could go to my native resolution of 1600 x 900 without much of a performance hit as well, and that makes a very BIG difference in the game. It actually makes the game look decent when you put it at that resolution and use the right brightness settings.

Now to test how far I could go I put the graphical settings back up to where I normally play at This is what I got. I did 2 benchmarks with the same settings.

Statistics
Average FPS: 29.81
Duration: 37.14 sec
CPU Usage: 99%
System memory usage: 65%
Video memory usage: 81%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1600 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Texture Filter Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli

Statistics
Average FPS: 30.19
Duration: 36.90 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 57%
Video memory usage: 93%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1600 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Texture Filter Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

The game had a choppy framerate once you got ingame. It looked beautiful, but it was choppy. It was playable, but still choppy. the lowest framerate I got was 8fps, the highest was 40 something. It normally stayed in the upper teens though. Despite that, I still considered it playable. If that was the only way the only frame rate that I could play it on, then I would have played it like that. Luckily, you can still lower the settings. The settings I had are still very high all across the boards. The only thing that I have that said medium was the textures, and medium is actually the second highest setting for textures since the highest setting for textures is high. You could easily lower some settings and get some visuals that are decent with decent framerates. The detail distance and traffic density really stresses the cpu so lowering it gives some fast results. Besides, not many people even like playing with 100 percent traffic density, and I don't even notice the increase in detail density once you get to the 20s or 30s. And the consoles had a detail distance somewhere around 15 so its all good.
You can still get decent graphics with decent framerates.


Now here are my benchmarks with two physical cores activated and no hyperthreading enabled.

First a benchmark with everything minimized.

Statistics
Average FPS: 64.12
Duration: 37.02 sec
CPU Usage: 90%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 58%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Texture Filter Quality: Low
View Distance: 1
Detail Distance: 1

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli

64 FPS. That's a big difference from the 52 fps we got with just hyperthreading on one core. The game ran very fluid. It ran more fluid than when I play GTA 4 normally. When I play with my settings, I usually get lower 54 fps from the becnhmark even though I use 4 cores with hyperthreading which makes 8 logical cores. The game was very fluid. No choppiness, no pop ups nothing. Now lets see what it is with my normal settings.

Statistics
Average FPS: 46.72
Duration: 37.84 sec
CPU Usage: 96%
System memory usage: 61%
Video memory usage: 94%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1600 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Texture Filter Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.10.655
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

46 fps according to the benchmark. The game was very playable. And very fluid. You don't notice anything with the frame rate unless you use fraps.

So all in all even though physical cores are still of course much better than simply using hyperthreading. There is still a very big difference when using hyperthreading. Hyperthreading however doesn't add nearly as much heat as a whole new physical core. At stock clock rates, there really is no difference in heat produced, and the is probably no difference in wattage use. It's kinda like a free upgrade, It also doesn't use the extra space in a cpu that a physical core uses. As of now we won't really see much of a difference in performance with hyperthreading since there really aren't many programs that use 8 threads, but later on it could be the difference between not running a game at all, and running the game with decent graphics.

But there is a problem the program has to be optimzed enough for use with hyperthreading, it also may not have as big of an influence with cache heavy programs. For Example. PCSX2. PCSX2 is a Playstation 2 emulator for the pc. Now I saw just about no difference in performance between hyperthreading and no hyperthreading in this emulator. Thje developers said that emulating the ps2 is already really hard since the processor is really complex and it uses multi chip cpus. Along with keeping up with the timings between the ps2 cpus and trying to thread for dual cores it gets real complicated. So complicated that using more than 2 cores would be so hard to do correctly that in the end there would probably be a performance loss. now these were the only two things that I tested. I used GTA Vice City Stories in PCSX2. So maybe in emulators hyperthreading might not make that big of a difference but in actual pc games hyperthreading has the potential to make a VERY big difference. Again, it was the difference between not running the game at all and running the game decently with good settings. As of now, you might see better performance by turning it off when you use 4 cores, but in the future when programs will be using more than 4 hyperthreading can be a big saviour.


TL;DR Version

Hyperthreading is an amazing way to add performance without sacrificing heat production, eletricity usage and actual space in the cpu design.

Also Excuse me for the topic title. It's just that it would be a got damn shame if nobody read my extremely long post so I used a topic title that I think would attract people here so I exaggerated just a tad.

/also even though many people say that hyperthreading sucked in the Pentium 4, you have to remember that when the P4 was released, not many programs were even multithtreaded, but there were benchmarks that showed that when certain games, like Quake 4 for example, got updated to use multithreading, the P4 with Hyperthreading got improved performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
benchmarking applications favor hyperthreading thats all

In real world performance hyperthreading sucks big time

Its just that it increases multitasking speeds a bit if running small applications

You FAIL just like tuanming does everytime

Know stuff before commenting on it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You never read my post. It has NO benchmarking applications, it just uses GTA 4 as a game, and I actually PLAYED the game to see the improvements in performance and it made the difference between the game not loading up, and actually playing the game with decent graphics. So you should actually read my post before commenting.
 

·
Oilslime
Joined
·
77 Posts
Hyperthreading does indeed rock for many programs that were designed with only one core in mind. Programs that were built more efficiently, especially those for multicore systems can experience a performance hit. I would say that you found a program that definately benefits here :eyemove:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
GTA 4 is made for use with lots of cores though. It's never had single core in mind. It doesn't even run on a single core i7. The minimum requirements say that you need a dual core to run the game.

But yes you can see a performance hit. I noticed I saw slightly a tiny little performance boost in GTA 4 when using 4 cores activated and hyperthreading enabled and disabled. This is because GTA 4 doesn't use all cores so in the end it had to split resources between the other 3 virtual cores that the game ran on. But it was still just a slight difference. The fps didn't change but the game was a little more stable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
You never read my posts or squall's posts in the core i7 supreme over core 2 quad thread

I said multitasking increases

You said "Hyperthreading is an amazing way to add performance without sacrificing heat production, eletricity usage and actual space in the cpu design."

Most people would want to kill you for saying such stuff

Hyperthreading is what makes Core i7 supernova hot

It adds a ****ing 20 degree Celsius
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I also said that it only applied to STOCK CLOCKS. If you read my full post you would know that. When stock clocked, it doesn't increase temperatures. I see no temperature change with hyperthreading enabled and disabled with my stock clocked i7.

And yes I read those posts I posted in those topics, most of the people in there don't even own i7s yet they are talking as if they know everything. Like people saying that i7 can't overclock into the 4 GHz without water cooling even though lots of reviewers have overclocked it to 3.8GHz stable without a change in voltage. And voltage is what increases the temperatures.

Squall and a few others were the only people that were speaking from experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
and what is the use of getting a Four core processor if you are going to use only one core

You fail Big time

when using all four cores the need of using hyperthreading goes away and also slows it down

You Fail and eat my shoe
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Okay, I didn't read your post entirely (I skimmed it), and perhaps I should be guilty because I tend to write long posts myself sometimes, but the reason I didn't read it stems not from length, but from this.
After running a few tests in a few games, mainly GTA 4
Grand Theft Auto IV is a failure and a joke. That game was worse than Far Cry 2 as far as technical issues went at launch, and the performance of it is terrible. For what the game looks like and should need, it runs like crap on today's highest end hardware. It's not even really that great of a game anyway (but that one's my personal opinion).

Secondly, Grand Theft Auto IV is multi-threaded badly, so of course the frame rate will go up if you enable Hyper-threading! That, doesn't really prove anything. Okay, so it does seem to go up quite a bit, but this is likely an extreme of an example of what Hyper-threading does, so this does not mean everything else would be the same, and as for your extreme example, that brings me to my next point. Now I just skimmed the post, so I could be wrong, but it appears you also compared results with different settings. Ungh, that's not how you benchmark. Alot of those sliders in the visuals department also tax the CPU heavily at higher settings.

I'm sorry, but this benchmark seems like it may have been poorly done, on a poorly done game, to exaggerate a claim, and either way, this would be an extreme of the benefits Hyper-threading gives, so this shows nothing. Actually, all I got from this was that even with a system like that, the game still pretty much runs like crap.

This being said, I think Hyper-threading is "okay". I'm not sure how it differs in Core i7, but for the Pentium 4, before dual core CPUs came about, Hyper-threading wasn't meant only as a "virtual core". No, the real meaning of it was increased efficiency (and that doesn't mean just increased performance). The extra virtual core was how it was implemented and a bonus. My old Pentium 4 2.8GHz (Northwood, 800MHz, socket 478) with Hyper-threading was actually quite smooth at multi-tasking. I've always thought Hyper-threading was okay, but these claims really seem like they're being fabricated here.

Edit: Okay, after reading the thing, I see you started at minimum and worked up from there both times. I must have missed one of the sets of results when I skimmed it where you started at minimum for Hyper-threading disabled. It seems like a legit 10FPS-15FPS difference then. Perhaps you should have made some pretty graphs. It'd of made it easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
I also said that it only applied to STOCK CLOCKS. If you read my full post you would know that. When stock clocked, it doesn't increase temperatures. I see no temperature change with hyperthreading enabled and disabled with my stock clocked i7.

Hyper theading disabled makes stock more overclockable due to decrease in temps and I know you are Gameman ( atleast got to same IQ )

I think you are even worse you cant understand a word im saying

GTA 4 is the only think that would make use of Hyperthreading

In all other things it gives a big decrease in performance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Okay, I didn't read your post entirely (I skimmed it), and perhaps I should be guilty because I tend to write long posts myself sometimes, but the reason I didn't read it stems not from length, but from this.Grand Theft Auto IV is a failure and a joke. That game was worse than Far Cry 2 as far as technical issues went at launch, and the performance of it is terrible. For what the game looks like and should need, it runs like crap on today's highest end hardware. It's not even really that great of a game anyway (but that one's my personal opinion).

Secondly, Grand Theft Auto IV is multi-threaded badly, so of course the frame rate will go up if you enable Hyper-threading! That, doesn't really prove anything. Okay, so it does seem to go up quite a bit, but this is likely an extreme of an example of what Hyper-threading does, so this does not mean everything else would be the same, and as for your extreme example, that brings me to my next point. Now I just skimmed the post, so I could be wrong, but it appears you also compared results with different settings. Ungh, that's not how you benchmark. Alot of those sliders in the visuals department also tax the CPU heavily at higher settings.

I'm sorry, but this benchmark seems like it may have been poorly done, on a poorly done game, to exaggerate a claim, and either way, this would be an extreme of the benefits Hyper-threading gives, so this shows nothing. Actually, all I got from this was that even with a system like that, the game still pretty much runs like crap.

This being said, I think Hyper-threading is "okay". I'm not sure how it differs in Core i7, but for the Pentium 4, before dual core CPUs came about, Hyper-threading wasn't meant only as a "virtual core". No, the real meaning of it was increased efficiency (and that doesn't mean just increased performance). The extra virtual core was how it was implemented and a bonus. My old Pentium 4 2.8GHz (Northwood, 800MHz, socket 478) with Hyper-threading was actually quite smooth at multi-tasking. I've always thought Hyper-threading was okay, but these claims really seem like they're being fabricated here.

Edit: Okay, after reading the thing, I see you started at minimum and worked up from there both times. I must have missed one of the sets of results when I skimmed it where you started at minimum for Hyper-threading disabled. It seems like a legit 10FPS-15FPS difference then. Perhaps you should have made some pretty graphs. It'd of made it easier.


The performance issues were mended out in GTA 4 with patch 1.0.3.0. Well for me it was and a lot of other people. There aren't many problems now. Yes the game doesn't look as good as others, but remember, its a huge city. The physics are why the game needs so much cpu power. Plus, there is a lot of ai that needs to be loaded, that also makes it so the cpu is stressed. Plus, the game didn;t even run at 60 fps on the consoles, it ran at 30 fps. It could barely run on the original source material so having it run on a hyperthreaded single core is pretty good. despite me having other improvements. I'm not saying that it's perfrect, but it did have a steep hill to climb.

Also the benchmarks were at the same settings. For each instance I had to test. First I did single core, then dual core then siungle core with hyperthreading. First I would run them at the minimized settings, then IV would jack the settings up to what I normally play with which is overall very high settings at a resolution of 1600 x 900. Then I take the fps of each one. So it was done in a controlled manner. I benchmarked correctly.


I really was surprised to see GTA 4 run at very high on a single core with hyperthreading. Very surprised. It was playable even though it was choppy. But it was on very high.

The resolution didn't really make much of a performance hit so you could increase the resolution to whatever you like(With the right gfx card) and then play with medium settings and have a good old time on your single core. I actually got caught up in the game when playing on my single core.

and what is the use of getting a Four core processor if you are going to use only one core

You fail Big time

when using all four cores the need of using hyperthreading goes away and also slows it down

You Fail and eat my shoe

Whats your problem? I never attacked you or anything. Go somewhere, you could at least try reading my post before you actually start attackig me. I used one core as an experiment to see if hyperthreading really had an impact in performance.

Hyper theading disabled makes stock more overclockable due to decrease in temps and I know you are Gameman ( atleast got to same IQ )

I think you are even worse you cant understand a word im saying

GTA 4 is the only think that would make use of Hyperthreading

In all other things it gives a big decrease in performance
Well DUH. I never said that it didn't make it more overclockable. I did say that at stock clocks there isn't much of a difference in heat, which is true.

Now I only tested GTA 4(Since it's my only pc game) and pcsx2 so we don't know if gta 4 is the only thing that benefits. I just did this last night. There could be a lot of programs that make use of it.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I made an edit to my previous post. I missed one of the batches of results in my skimming.

I'm not sure about the performance. I never even really got it run on my install of Windows XP at the time, so I gave up on it (and I'm not about to care to try it on Windows 7 right now). It may run better than it did, but even if it runs better than it does on the console, I still think it could run twice as good if it were done better.

I remember everyone expecting a dual core and GeForce 8800GT (oops, that's my setup) being the perfect setup for years to come for console ports, but it looks like CPU power matters alot more now, what with the consoles being multi-core themselves. Still, you just happened to find something that fits every situation for Hyper-threading mattering alot (admittedly, more than it should), but overall, I still don't think it's what this thread title makes it out to be (and I know the title was exaggerated, but I'm just saying).

Edit: PCSX2 doesn't benefit from any more than two cores (minus GSdx in software rendering mode). Also, note the Radeon HD3x00 and Radeon HD4x00 series of GPUs are known to offload alot of work to the CPU, taking up as much as half a core (roughly, from what I've seen). This perhaps only shows minute or negligible difference in PC games, but in PCSX2, it hurts alot. Supposedly, Squall-Leonhart has said this was fixed in recent driver versions, like the one you have, but I'm just pointing it out. Since PCSX2 needs as much of two cores as possible, those with dual core CPUs and a Radeon HD4x00 card paired with it have seen much worse results than similar systems with an nVidia GPU. Keep this in mind when testing PSXC2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Yeah, GTA 4 could have some major improvements. No doubt about that. The shadows look effed up when on anything less than high. But they did give us the option to turn it off. And the game looks good with it off. Also, if you try it again, you should turn the reflection resolution to low. It makes a big hit in gpu performance in terms of vram, but you never actually see the difference unless you are looking in the mirror. For the benchmark I left it on, but when actually playing the game, you would probably see no difference between it being on low or very high. It's a good way to squeeze out a good few extra framrates especially on that 8800GT of yours.

Also I could understand why ports need so much cpu power. The XBox has a triple core processor so if a game could barely run on the XBox and it gets ported to the pc, then even if your dual core beats the xbox triple core in every way, you might still have problems. And the PS3 has the Cell. Killzone 2 ran mainly on the cell and they didn't use the gpu as much as most other games. And that game looks amazing. Plus its fpu beats every pc cpu. Including the i7. (Even though fpu doesn't matter as much as other things when playing a game.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
I read your whole post believe it or not

It is what your title that annoyed me the most and the second thing was that you are not going it to real world performance

I dont think any one would activate only one core of a Core i7 ( unless you are a mental case and a big retard )
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Most games just need GPU power. Grand Theft Auto IV seems to like GPU VRAM amount and CPU power more, things that are often something you "just need enough of" in most other games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
I read your whole post believe it or not

It is what your title that annoyed me the most and the second thing was that you are not going it to real world performance

I dont think any one would activate only one core of a Core i7 ( unless you are a mental case and a big retard )


forget about the one core thing. As of now most programs don't use 8 cores. Thats why we aren't seeing the increase in performance with hyperthreading. But imagine what happens when programs start using 5 cores or 6 or even 8. Hyperthreading in the i7 will save a lot of people. By going back to one core it was like going back in time, to see how a single core user would feel using more modern programs and games. Activating hyperthreading really made a difference when you didn't have the actual requirements. So hyperthreadiong will still probably help out when there is a game that uses 6 cores, even though I only have a quad.

The single core usage was just to isolate other influences so I coukld see if hyperthreading really makes a difference. It's not like anybody needs 8 virtual cores now. Thats why we don't see the performance difference.

Your test fails big time

You lose
Stop trolling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
You fail again

nothing uses 4 cores properly right now and you are going 8 cores which is not nearby future by any chance ( besides 6 core COre i7s are just around the block )

those 8 virtual cores = 4 physical cores , in power

4 virtual cores have half the power of 4 physical cores

for some people stock temps shot as high as 80c at 100% load

So who wouldn't want a 20c decrease in temps and overall increase in performance

Im fighting against what is wrong and totally incorrect
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
the only reason for an i7 to be that hot is if you are improperly cooling it, or if you are doing to much overclocking.

Also, 8 virtual cores aren't equal to 4 physical cores. 8 virtual ones probably aren't as good as 8 physical ones, but it's definately better than just 4 physical ones. Theres no reason to even include hyperthreading if it didn't increase performance.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top