Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    Isn't a solid 30 fps enough to raid? During raids you're rather focused on your environment and bars and you'll be automatically ignoring how smooth the game runs. Aslong as you don't have a 1-3sec freeze, it's okay.

    I don't see the point yet of HT. But in the future like over 2-3 years it will have it's advantage for the 2nd and 3rd gen i7's or i3's. Also there's an option in nvidia contron panel (threaded optimization), this function is allowing me to use all the 8 cores on my 2600k but 0% difference in fps because the 6 threads are rather taking work off the 2 main threads.

    @Op I would just rather ignore the i7 tbh. An i5 is more than enough to play games and video-editing. Who cares if the i7 finishes converting a video in 7mins while the i5 does it in 10mins?
    wasn't HT gain for applications that benefit from it similar to sli performance gain? (not 100% but +- 60-90% region?)
    also BF3 gains a good chunk of frames from HT. (even more on higher resolutions if the gpu(s) can keep up ofc)

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    wasn't HT gain for applications that benefit from it similar to sli performance gain? (not 100% but +- 60-90% region?)
    also BF3 gains a good chunk of frames from HT. (even more on higher resolutions if the gpu(s) can keep up ofc)
    Hmm.. i7 with 8 threads which means if a thread (or core) is fully being used is 12.5% (100/8)

    BF3 indeed uses all cores including the fake cores, so does SWTOR.



    Vsync enabled GPU usage of 50% - http://i.imgur.com/PU0rE.jpg
    Vsync disabled GPU usage of 99% - http://i.imgur.com/BbJnq.jpg

    Have a look at the FPS & cpu usage. Might give you a view. Well I rather think a 2600k will bottleneck a configuration 4x gtx 680 (1250MHz on gpu & 6500 on VRAM) in resolutions like 3 monitors of 2560x1600.

    As you can look in the screenshots, the i5 will in that situation running around let's say 60-70% because it's 30% less powerful.

    Also it depends on game though. Something like unigine heaven which is just insanely written, my cpu only sits around 5-10% while everything maximized with a gtx 680 (1300MHz core, 7600MHz VRAM @ stock volts/power)

    Having a look into the future with much heavier games & better graphics cards, the i7 will last longer than the i5 IF the game makes USE of HT.

    Personally, I haven't noticed any fps gain with having HT enabled or disabled during BF3 @ 1080p ultra. In that situation the i5 does his job perfect while the i7 does it job also perfect.

    Some games are only making use of 2 main threads like WoW and overclocking helps there a lot. If you don't mind the voltages, the i5 can be pushed more than an i7 just simply because the i5 will run 10-12° cooler than the i7. HT makes your cpu running hotter, yes.

  3. #23
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    Isn't a solid 30 fps enough to raid? During raids you're rather focused on your environment and bars and you'll be automatically ignoring how smooth the game runs. Aslong as you don't have a 1-3sec freeze, it's okay.

    I don't see the point yet of HT. But in the future like over 2-3 years it will have it's advantage for the 2nd and 3rd gen i7's or i3's. Also there's an option in nvidia contron panel (threaded optimization), this function is allowing me to use all the 8 cores on my 2600k but 0% difference in fps because the 6 threads are rather taking work off the 2 main threads.

    @Op I would just rather ignore the i7 tbh. An i5 is more than enough to play games and video-editing. Who cares if the i7 finishes converting a video in 7mins while the i5 does it in 10mins?
    4.4-4.6 is about all you need to play games, which on a SB or IB cpu and good gpu will get you in the 45-55 fps range in 25 man raids

    beyond 4.6 you dont notice as much of an improvement, and really need a benchmark to show results

    HT has its advantages when it comes to multi tasking and core count based programs, but im not aware of any game that can seriously take advantage of HT or 6 core CPUs, which is why the i5 is always recommended for a gaming pc, while its not the best performance-per-dollar CPU, it reaches the top of gaming performance and anything more expensive will not give better results worth the extra cost

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | RV05
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    4.4-4.6 is about all you need to play games, which on a SB or IB cpu and good gpu will get you in the 45-55 fps range in 25 man raids

    beyond 4.6 you dont notice as much of an improvement, and really need a benchmark to show results

    HT has its advantages when it comes to multi tasking and core count based programs, but im not aware of any game that can seriously take advantage of HT or 6 core CPUs, which is why the i5 is always recommended for a gaming pc, while its not the best performance-per-dollar CPU, it reaches the top of gaming performance and anything more expensive will not give better results worth the extra cost
    BF3 with HT -> http://imgur.com/s38Ud,4dybl
    BF3 without HT -> http://i.imgur.com/4dybl.jpg

    As we know that core0, core2, core 4, core 6 are psychical cores and all the others are the fake cores which I disabled through task manager for BF3. If I disable HT in bios which would make sense my Total CPU usage will be higher.

    You won't see any performance gain @ 1080p ultra with an i5 or an i7 in any game.

  5. #25
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    BF3 with HT -> http://imgur.com/s38Ud,4dybl
    BF3 without HT -> http://i.imgur.com/4dybl.jpg

    As we know that core0, core2, core 4, core 6 are psychical cores and all the others are the fake cores which I disabled through task manager for BF3. If I disable HT in bios which would make sense my Total CPU usage will be higher.

    You won't see any performance gain @ 1080p ultra with an i5 or an i7 in any game.
    low load anyway due to empty map also screenshot is low quality or BF3 not maxed out? (also VoW etc?)
    also 120hz for BF3 might have a need for it .

    EDIT:
    why changed the pic's? (first ones you linked were you standing between containers @canals map)
    ofc it matters if you got 64 people blasting each other to bits with every explosion being rendered in the highest settings.

    the reason i mentioned a 120hz screen was that HT might provide the push needed to hit the 120fps mark there compared to an i5 which might just be +-20% frames off easy.
    Last edited by shroudster; 2012-11-24 at 09:19 PM.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    low load anyway due to empty map also screenshot is low quality or BF3 not maxed out? (also VoW etc?)
    also 120hz for BF3 might have a need for it .
    Does it matter? It's on ultra quality preset in bf3 with 8x SSAA in control panel, texture filtering on highest quality and Ambient occlussion as well and full VoW.

    I didn't use halfscreen because I wanted to show the gadgets though.

    Vsync was disabled so in both screens. Screens are in 1080p so is my resolution.

    What does a 120 hz monitor matter now? I didnt use Vsync and I don't have a 120hz monitor

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •