So you may be wondering, does hyperthreading help or hurt gaming performance? Yes, we've all read various opinions, like "latency penalties", "games are optimized for 2/4 cores only"... and my favorite: "you paid for it, why not use it?" argument. But despite all of these well-informed people, I couldn't find any tests or data to back these claims. So I set out to do some testing of my own. Originally it was just a few benchmarks for myself, but I quickly realized it would do more good if I shared my findings.
I had two goals:
1) 4ghz HT vs 4ghz without
2) 3.8ghz with HT vs 4ghz without
The first is a straight-up comparison of with and without hyperthreading: which pulls higher fps?
The second is to address the majority of i7 920 owners: on air, overclocking limited primarily due to heat. Should they use a lower clock and hyperthreading, or higher clock and disable hyperthreading?
Test system: i7 920, Classified E760, HD5870 stock clocks, 6gb ddr3 @ 1552mhz cas 7, win 7 x64, P64 Corsair ssd. Cpu clocks were 191x20=3810mhz HT, 191x21=4000mhz HT, and 191x21=4000mhz no HT.
Update 2/18: Updated with a Crysis, Fallout, and another Far Cry test.
Update 2/19: Per user request, I did a GTA IV benchie at 2.67ghz, and got the same fps as the 3.8 and 4ghz runs...
So im scrapping all GTA data in favor of a custom walkthrough. Thanks to grossebeaver for the suggestion!
Update 2/20: New GTA and Dragon Age results are up, along with user requested stock runs of GTA and Dragon Age.
Update 4/26: Back by popular demand! Updated with a Bad Company 2 and L4D2 results.
--------------------------------------
***Bad Company 2***
Settings: 3x @ DX 11, 1680x1050, 1xMSAA, 1xAnisotrophic, Detal/Texture/Shadow= medium, Effects= high, HBAO= off
The new smash hit from DICE. The run was the first vehicel chase sceen, with plenty of explosions and AI.
Goal 1) Although averages are the same, non-hyperthreading recieves a 2fps boost. Add a point for non-HT.
Goal 2) Lower clockspeed manages to match average framerates, but falls 4 fps short in the minimum catagory. Higher clocks takes the gold.
***Crysis***
Settings: "cpu test" 3x @ DX 9.0, 1680x1050, AA 0x, medium preset with physics= very high
The pc gaming standard, Crysis. Don't need to say much else.
Goal 1) Although average framerates are within 0.6fps, HT manages to pull ahead with 3.4fps minimum improvement. A win for HT.
Goal 2) The extra 200mhz wins by a landslide, most notably with the 10fps minimum increase. Solid win for higher clock here.
***Crysis Warhead***
Settings: Ambush 3 runs @ dx9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, Gamer preset, physics=enthusiest
Yet more Crysis goodness.
Goal 1) Identical averages, but non-hyperthreading pulls a 3fps minimum lead. Very small difference, but non-hyperthreading wins here.
Goal 2) Again, identical average fps scores, but raw clockspeed wins with a 7fps minimum gain.
***Dragon Age: Origins***
Settings: 1680x1050, Graphics and Texture= High, 0xAA, no Frame-Buffer effects
Goal 1) HT shows a 5fps minimum improvement over non-hyperthreading, as well as 2fps average. HT takes the gold here, although at those framerates you cant tell the difference.
Goal 2) Dragon Age clearly benifits from higher clock speed. Non-hyperthreading ftw.
Identical settings as regular DA:O above, except with stock clocks
***Fallout 3***
Settings: DX9, 1680x1050, 0x AA, 0xAF, Medium preset, object/actor fade= max
A 2 minute walk from vault 101, through Springvale, ending with overlook of city in the distance... measured with fraps.
Goal 1) Scores too close to declare a winner here. Its a tie.
Goal 2) Another huge victory for raw clockspeed. Non-hyperthreading is a clear winner.
***Far Cry 2***
Settings: Ranch small test, 3 loops @ DX9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, fire/physics/trees= very high, everything else= medium preset.
Very close.
Goal 1) Hyperthreading sees a 0.05% increase in average fps. Conclusion: identical performance.
Goal 2) 2fps average and 1.5fps minimum increase with higher clock. Negligible difference considering these are in the +100fps range, but non-hyperthreading technicly wins.
Settings: Ranch demo, 3 loops @ DX9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, fire/physics/trees= very high, everything else= medium preset.
The ranch demo test features more fire, explosions, shooting, and AI npcs.
Goal 1) Very small, but HT takes 1st place with the 2.3fps lead over non-hyperthreading. Chalk up another HT win.
Goal 2) Although HT sees a 1.3fps minimum gain, it also looses by 0.8fps average. Too close to call a victor here (tie).
***GTA IV***
Settings: view=50, detail=70, 1680x1050, texture and render=medium.
New and improved walkthrough: the first mission (drive cousin to his place), measured with fraps.
Goal 1) Suprisingly, non-hyperthreading pulls some impressive numbers, up by 4fps in both average and minimum catagories. Cores ftw.
Goal 2) Another hands-down win here, the extra mhz is what GTA likes.
Identical settings to regular GTA IV test above, but with stock clocks
***Left 4 Dead 2***
Settings: 3x @ 1920x1200, 0xAA, Shader/Texture= Medium, Effects= High, Paged Pool Memory= High
This test was pretty fun. I loaded "The Parish" level, turned on God mode, infinite ammo, and grenade launcher. I then called 3 horde/panics, recording each with FRAPS.
Goal 1) HT gets a 2.5fps average lead over non-HT, but looses by 5fps minimum. Tough choice, but I feel non-HT recieves another point.
Goal 2) Its pretty clear the extra 200mhz over HT is the way to go.
***Oblivion***
Settings: 1920x1200, 8xAA, Bloom lighting, Textures=Ultra High, View/render distences=max, Quarl's HiRes texture pack mod
There was no timedemo for oblivion, so i devised a 45-second run through trees, water, and a view of the Imperial City.
Goal 1) Hyperthreading gets a 3fps average and 11fps minimum boost. Nothing interesting, but HT wins this battle.
Goal 2) Again, hyperthreading manages a 2fps average and 5fps minimum increase, despite the lower clock speed. Another win for HT.
***S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky***
Settings: Default preset, full dyn. lighting, 0xmsaa, 1680x1050
Although it was a bit buggy, the stand-alone stalker benchmark program is a great idea. I also noticed that this game only utilizes one core...
Goal 1) Hyperthreading looses by 1.7fps average. Again, very small difference, but non-hyperthreading wins.
Goal 2) Hyperthreading sees a 4.4fps average and 11fps minimum loss to its higher-clocked opponent. Solid win for non-hyperthreading.
***3DMark Vantage***
Settings: Performance preset
Goal 1) Identical gpu test scores, but omg look at the AI and Physics scores! Wow! Hyperthreading hands-down winner.
Goal 2) Exact same result: gpu-wise they're the same, but the AI and Physics tests blow non-hyperthreading out of the water.
---------------------------------------
Goal 1 Conclusion: It seems there isn't any real pattern between hyperthreading and non-hyperthreading. They trade blows and all results are very close, but if one had to choose a winner, turning HT off seems to yield slightly better framerates. But for simplicity's sake, the verdict is: Hyperthreading neither helps nor hurts when gaming.
Goal 2 Conclusion: Excluding the Vantage results, an extra 200mhz over hyperthreading is always the better choice. Not surprising, as HT in goal 1 showed no real advantage or disadvantage. If you couldn't guess it, the verdict is: Always choose a higher clockspeed over hyperthreading for gaming.
Thank you for watching! I may come back with a Crysis 2 benchmark when its released, but based on what we've seen so far, don't expect anything ground-breaking
I had two goals:
1) 4ghz HT vs 4ghz without
2) 3.8ghz with HT vs 4ghz without
The first is a straight-up comparison of with and without hyperthreading: which pulls higher fps?
The second is to address the majority of i7 920 owners: on air, overclocking limited primarily due to heat. Should they use a lower clock and hyperthreading, or higher clock and disable hyperthreading?
Test system: i7 920, Classified E760, HD5870 stock clocks, 6gb ddr3 @ 1552mhz cas 7, win 7 x64, P64 Corsair ssd. Cpu clocks were 191x20=3810mhz HT, 191x21=4000mhz HT, and 191x21=4000mhz no HT.
Update 2/18: Updated with a Crysis, Fallout, and another Far Cry test.
Update 2/19: Per user request, I did a GTA IV benchie at 2.67ghz, and got the same fps as the 3.8 and 4ghz runs...
Update 2/20: New GTA and Dragon Age results are up, along with user requested stock runs of GTA and Dragon Age.
Update 4/26: Back by popular demand! Updated with a Bad Company 2 and L4D2 results.
--------------------------------------
***Bad Company 2***
Settings: 3x @ DX 11, 1680x1050, 1xMSAA, 1xAnisotrophic, Detal/Texture/Shadow= medium, Effects= high, HBAO= off
The new smash hit from DICE. The run was the first vehicel chase sceen, with plenty of explosions and AI.
Goal 1) Although averages are the same, non-hyperthreading recieves a 2fps boost. Add a point for non-HT.
Goal 2) Lower clockspeed manages to match average framerates, but falls 4 fps short in the minimum catagory. Higher clocks takes the gold.
***Crysis***
Settings: "cpu test" 3x @ DX 9.0, 1680x1050, AA 0x, medium preset with physics= very high
The pc gaming standard, Crysis. Don't need to say much else.
Goal 1) Although average framerates are within 0.6fps, HT manages to pull ahead with 3.4fps minimum improvement. A win for HT.
Goal 2) The extra 200mhz wins by a landslide, most notably with the 10fps minimum increase. Solid win for higher clock here.
***Crysis Warhead***
Settings: Ambush 3 runs @ dx9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, Gamer preset, physics=enthusiest
Yet more Crysis goodness.
Goal 1) Identical averages, but non-hyperthreading pulls a 3fps minimum lead. Very small difference, but non-hyperthreading wins here.
Goal 2) Again, identical average fps scores, but raw clockspeed wins with a 7fps minimum gain.
***Dragon Age: Origins***
Settings: 1680x1050, Graphics and Texture= High, 0xAA, no Frame-Buffer effects
Goal 1) HT shows a 5fps minimum improvement over non-hyperthreading, as well as 2fps average. HT takes the gold here, although at those framerates you cant tell the difference.
Goal 2) Dragon Age clearly benifits from higher clock speed. Non-hyperthreading ftw.
Identical settings as regular DA:O above, except with stock clocks
***Fallout 3***
Settings: DX9, 1680x1050, 0x AA, 0xAF, Medium preset, object/actor fade= max
A 2 minute walk from vault 101, through Springvale, ending with overlook of city in the distance... measured with fraps.
Goal 1) Scores too close to declare a winner here. Its a tie.
Goal 2) Another huge victory for raw clockspeed. Non-hyperthreading is a clear winner.
***Far Cry 2***
Settings: Ranch small test, 3 loops @ DX9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, fire/physics/trees= very high, everything else= medium preset.
Very close.
Goal 1) Hyperthreading sees a 0.05% increase in average fps. Conclusion: identical performance.
Goal 2) 2fps average and 1.5fps minimum increase with higher clock. Negligible difference considering these are in the +100fps range, but non-hyperthreading technicly wins.
Settings: Ranch demo, 3 loops @ DX9, 1680x1050, 0xAA, fire/physics/trees= very high, everything else= medium preset.
The ranch demo test features more fire, explosions, shooting, and AI npcs.
Goal 1) Very small, but HT takes 1st place with the 2.3fps lead over non-hyperthreading. Chalk up another HT win.
Goal 2) Although HT sees a 1.3fps minimum gain, it also looses by 0.8fps average. Too close to call a victor here (tie).
***GTA IV***
Settings: view=50, detail=70, 1680x1050, texture and render=medium.
New and improved walkthrough: the first mission (drive cousin to his place), measured with fraps.
Goal 1) Suprisingly, non-hyperthreading pulls some impressive numbers, up by 4fps in both average and minimum catagories. Cores ftw.
Goal 2) Another hands-down win here, the extra mhz is what GTA likes.
Identical settings to regular GTA IV test above, but with stock clocks
***Left 4 Dead 2***
Settings: 3x @ 1920x1200, 0xAA, Shader/Texture= Medium, Effects= High, Paged Pool Memory= High
This test was pretty fun. I loaded "The Parish" level, turned on God mode, infinite ammo, and grenade launcher. I then called 3 horde/panics, recording each with FRAPS.
Goal 1) HT gets a 2.5fps average lead over non-HT, but looses by 5fps minimum. Tough choice, but I feel non-HT recieves another point.
Goal 2) Its pretty clear the extra 200mhz over HT is the way to go.
***Oblivion***
Settings: 1920x1200, 8xAA, Bloom lighting, Textures=Ultra High, View/render distences=max, Quarl's HiRes texture pack mod
There was no timedemo for oblivion, so i devised a 45-second run through trees, water, and a view of the Imperial City.
Goal 1) Hyperthreading gets a 3fps average and 11fps minimum boost. Nothing interesting, but HT wins this battle.
Goal 2) Again, hyperthreading manages a 2fps average and 5fps minimum increase, despite the lower clock speed. Another win for HT.
***S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky***
Settings: Default preset, full dyn. lighting, 0xmsaa, 1680x1050
Although it was a bit buggy, the stand-alone stalker benchmark program is a great idea. I also noticed that this game only utilizes one core...
Goal 1) Hyperthreading looses by 1.7fps average. Again, very small difference, but non-hyperthreading wins.
Goal 2) Hyperthreading sees a 4.4fps average and 11fps minimum loss to its higher-clocked opponent. Solid win for non-hyperthreading.
***3DMark Vantage***
Settings: Performance preset
Goal 1) Identical gpu test scores, but omg look at the AI and Physics scores! Wow! Hyperthreading hands-down winner.
Goal 2) Exact same result: gpu-wise they're the same, but the AI and Physics tests blow non-hyperthreading out of the water.
---------------------------------------
Goal 1 Conclusion: It seems there isn't any real pattern between hyperthreading and non-hyperthreading. They trade blows and all results are very close, but if one had to choose a winner, turning HT off seems to yield slightly better framerates. But for simplicity's sake, the verdict is: Hyperthreading neither helps nor hurts when gaming.
Goal 2 Conclusion: Excluding the Vantage results, an extra 200mhz over hyperthreading is always the better choice. Not surprising, as HT in goal 1 showed no real advantage or disadvantage. If you couldn't guess it, the verdict is: Always choose a higher clockspeed over hyperthreading for gaming.
Thank you for watching! I may come back with a Crysis 2 benchmark when its released, but based on what we've seen so far, don't expect anything ground-breaking