• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

To Hyperthread or not to Hyperthread, that is the question.

J

jonny4

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
105
looking at both sandy bridge k cpu's and can't for the life of me find the answer i am looking for. I have read through multiple forums posts, searched google and even sent intel a support email question. I use my pc for everything, gaming, video encoding, streaming, storage, Autocad, photoshop, web authoring and much more. So maybe someone here can find a list of software that uses hyper-threading so i can see if it is worth the 100 dollar price increase.
 
Well, top of my head.... video encoding, autocad, photoshop, and certain games will do well with the hyperthreading, otherwise higher clocks....since its a multiuse computer why not just leave it on since SB overclocks so well anyways with it on
 
thx for the quick response and you sold me on the 2600k then, now just have to wait until frys gets them in stock so i dont have to drive an hour to micro center.
 
For what you use it for, the answer is yes. Hyperthreading is worth it for your application.
 
I looked at it this way. The 2600k is 50% more expensive than the 2500k, but I didn't feel it was a 50% better processor overall. However, in some cases the slightly better overclockability along with hyperthreading might push you to and above 50% better in certain applications. I'm not cheap when it comes to hardware, but I prefer to go with the best bang for my buck. That being said, I went with the 2500k. I'm quite happy with my choice and am eager to see what may be released in the future. Be it a new stepping 26xxK or perhaps a 2700k series CPU? More physical cores would be welcome on this socket.
 
I'd like the hyperthreading, but decided to go with the $180 microcenter 2500K. Hopefully I'll be able to flip it for above $100 in two years or so and upgrade to something with 6+ cores
 
HT is a waste for desktop use. If you're going to be running many highly threaded apps, like the stuff djLiTh mentioned then HT may be good to have. Just don't expect the gains to be huge. It's not worth the extra $100 though. I'd get the 2500K, and use the saved money to buy a really nice cooler and overclock the hell out of the chip, hell or even a 60GB ssd just for the OS :)
 
it's worth if it you fold for sure, because bigadv units require 8 threads, but otherwise you can save your dough.
 
HT offers something like 10-12% more performance on multithreaded apps overall. It always reminded me of the good old MMX tech stuff on Pentiums years past which offered about the same level of "boost" for MMX-enabled code.

One would think that given the price difference, a 2500K overclocked to 4.2-4.4 GHz would be a better long term solution than a 2600K, at least that's how I'm starting to look at it. Yes, considering that I plan to build an x264 encoding monster at some point, and the HT could help a bit (and with video encoding, every little bit of time saved is a good thing), I think I'd rather get the 2500K and spend the ~$100 difference in price on more RAM for the machine...
 
I had been interested in the i7-2600S for my rebuild, but apparently that's a long time (if ever) away from appearing in the retail market.

Thus, I'm debating between the 2500K and the 2600K. I do some gaming, and use some applications like AutoCAD and Photoshop at times, but not as a regular occurrence.

Think the additional money for the 2600K is worth it, or best just to go with the 2500K?
 
Joe Average said:
HT offers something like 10-12% more performance on multithreaded apps overall. It always reminded me of the good old MMX tech stuff on Pentiums years past which offered about the same level of "boost" for MMX-enabled code.

One would think that given the price difference, a 2500K overclocked to 4.2-4.4 GHz would be a better long term solution than a 2600K, at least that's how I'm starting to look at it. Yes, considering that I plan to build an x264 encoding monster at some point, and the HT could help a bit (and with video encoding, every little bit of time saved is a good thing), I think I'd rather get the 2500K and spend the ~$100 difference in price on more RAM for the machine...
Click to expand...

IF you have a program that is very efficient with the threads (no locks), you can gain a nice 20-30% with current Intel Hyperthreading.
 
Do any games actually take advantage of HT? Or are there any games that run worse with it on?
 
dnottis said:
Do any games actually take advantage of HT? Or are there any games that run worse with it on?
Click to expand...

Not sure about games. I think games that are coded for SMP will use whatever the computer lets it use.

One HT core is equal to about 0.5 to 0.25 the power of a real physical core to my understanding. Its worth the money if you video encode/transcode/convert etc... imo.

it is DEF worth it if you run virtualized computers in the background which I do as well. I am just hurting for more RAM. 8GB is NOT enough!
 
There are minimal performance gains in most situations, but the real downside is that it often doubles the usage of power. This was true for both Nehalem and Westmere-EP.
 
Keep in mind the 2600k also has an 8 meg L3 instead of the 6 meg in the 2500k.

PassMark gives around 7,000 for the 2500k and 10,000 for the 2600k (stock clock).
 
Ehren8879 said:
I looked at it this way. The 2600k is 50% more expensive than the 2500k, but I didn't feel it was a 50% better processor overall. However, in some cases the slightly better overclockability along with hyperthreading might push you to and above 50% better in certain applications. I'm not cheap when it comes to hardware, but I prefer to go with the best bang for my buck. That being said, I went with the 2500k. I'm quite happy with my choice and am eager to see what may be released in the future. Be it a new stepping 26xxK or perhaps a 2700k series CPU? More physical cores would be welcome on this socket.
Click to expand...

That's largely why I've stuck with the 2500K myself (bang for the buck).

Just at stock (no overclocking) the 2500K eats the i7-920 for lunch. Also, does the i7-920 have HT at all?

While more cores would be a nice future upgrade, the key word there is *future*, as no applications (or even games) that I run today or plan to in the short term can make use of more than four cores and HT at the same time (if something takes advantage of HT, it usually does not take advantage of four cores, and vice-versa). For now, the i5-2500K is plenty.
 
tangoseal said:
Not sure about games. I think games that are coded for SMP will use whatever the computer lets it use.

One HT core is equal to about 0.5 to 0.25 the power of a real physical core to my understanding. Its worth the money if you video encode/transcode/convert etc... imo.

it is DEF worth it if you run virtualized computers in the background which I do as well. I am just hurting for more RAM. 8GB is NOT enough!
Click to expand...

That is the *other* reason I stayed with the 2500K; I'm using what money that didn't go into a 2600K for more RAM (doubling the RAM from 8 GB to 16 GB).

More RAM is a bigger benefit if you do virtualization (unless you use VT-d, it's actually a greater benefit than additional cores, because background VMs don't bog down due to memory starvation due to swap usage)
 
Good thread! I've been sort of wondering similar things but I am fairly sure at this point I'm going with the 2500k. Right now it more than suits my needs, I just worry overmuch about "But what if I want HT in 2 years because I might be doing X?"

Still was good to have someone post an idea of what kinds of apps HT would usually help with (such as Photoshop, which I use a fair bit) but that would still run without it fine, just perhaps not quite as awesome. Right?
 
I have an itch to get the 2600k, yet the voice of reason in my head is telling me it will end up being a waste of money. Although I'm wondering if the 2600k might have a larger resell market (compared to the 2500k) if I upgrade in the future from people wanting to move up to 2600ks.

I occasionally dabble in graphics work as a hobby that I know the 2600k can have somewhat of an impact, as benchmarks of these usage situations is readily available.

But I'm wondering how it affects multitasking? Since almost all review cases are tested using isolated situations.

For instance watching a 1080p movie while playing a CPU limited game?
Multiclienting games (possible in VMs)?
Running a server (that uses Database access) and playing a game?
Doing CPU work (rendering, encoding, photoshop, etc.) while gaming or watching a movie?
Running web clients with heavy flash usage while doing productivity/gaming?
Perhaps multiple combination scenarios of the above?

What about multitasking with Virtual machines? I have recently been dabbling with them.
 
It does seem like the 2600k are better overclockers. In one of the other threads the retail 2500K are topping out about 4.4 with 100% stability, 4.6 and 4.8 are possible but not with 100% stability. Seems the reviewers got some cherry picked chips. The 2600ks seem to be getting closer to 5.0 more consistently.

Glad I didn't jump ship just yet.
 
I'd think the overclocking are even. My 2500K can hit 5ghz easy. BUT it needs 1.54v and it gets hot on LinX. Mid 90's with my setup. I can't test it for stability though. When I saw those temps I stopped the test right away. Don't want to kill my chip.
 
rUmX said:
I'd think the overclocking are even. My 2500K can hit 5ghz easy. BUT it needs 1.54v and it gets hot on LinX. Mid 90's with my setup. I can't test it for stability though. When I saw those temps I stopped the test right away. Don't want to kill my chip.
Click to expand...

..and 1.54 is too much voltage even if the temps were managed.
 
This is what BF BC2 looks like with HT on and the reason I think Im gonna stick with my i7 860 over a 2500k right now... thoughts?




And with 4 cores we can see hitting 100% at times. I'd rather have 8 threads that aren't maxed than 4 that are.

 
Last edited:
I never understood whats so good about HT.

isnt it just pretending you have more cpu's so just making one cpu act like 2?
 
chrcoluk said:
I never understood whats so good about HT.

isnt it just pretending you have more cpu's so just making one cpu act like 2?
Click to expand...

It actually helps with multitasking. Believe me, back in the single core CPU days it was quite nice.
 
chrcoluk said:
I never understood whats so good about HT.

isnt it just pretending you have more cpu's so just making one cpu act like 2?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, it divides your CPU's operations into two groups. If you want to call two operations and they are in different groups, you'll see a significant increase in performance. Some applications can be coded to get pretty big benefits from HT
 
I went with the 2600k because like my last machine I wand to squeeze as much time out of it as possible. I also taper my upgrades I will be replacing my video card in another year and a half maybe two so I will not be completely obsolete in 4 years. I mean if anyone wants to sell me a Gtx 280 ill make this machine into sli right now, lol, but it is a pain finding gtx 280's.
 
Yep, it all depends on the application It can range from big boost, to nothing at all.
 
Opinion only, but HT is a waste, untill its on every chip, developers wont use it, they wont spend the time to add it, etc... Sure there will be some stuff, and if that stuff is what you use (ALOT) why not. $100 really isnt going to break the bank. Just dont expect alot os stuff to use it. All these 'addon" things never take off unless they are standard. Cost is something devolpers factor in.. 2% of your buyers use it, why bother?

Personaly I got a 2600K, why not as I say $100 is nothing.. I have recipts for $700 CPU's that where not even top of the line from 5-10 years ago.. And if $100 is a real issue (not everybody has $100 laying around) the 2500K will never dispoint ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top