Would a 2500k at 4.5 GHz beat a 920 at 4 GHz with HT on in 3dmark?

[Naruto Uzumaki]

I do not reference points does not matter, but I'm curious if it would be a 4.5ghz 2500K to beat a 920 to 4 GHz with HT in 3dmark, or push HT beyond 2500K yet? The 2500K should win hands down. The recent architecture of the second generation of the Core is more than enough to beat a clock 920 for the watch; much less a lead of 500 MHz HT is not a significant performance boost, especially for games.

[AmdUser]

HT enabled actually decrease performance in some games. 2500K hands down. The only game where HT until the situation is Grand Theft Auto IV. That's not even as big a game, anyway? It would have been nice if they all had improved graphics mods out two years ago. It would be very nice to see the banks of a 2500k@4.5 GHz compared to 920 to 4 GHz + HT in that game.

[Logan.M]

I think this is the greatest thing that people here do not realize. Even if the game is programmed to use 4 cores. when the operating system is something that will get a stuttering, trembling, something. HT Vista makes everything smoother for me. Sure, cores@4.8 4 GHz was nice, but 8 GHz threads@4.8 feels even softer for me. I just got my new 2600K installed @ 1.37 GHz with 8 threads and temperature of 4.8 is still a touch lower than my 2500K. I'm happy. I'll point to 5.0 in a few days. Just wanted to at least match my 2500K OC I've done.

[Abhibhava]

Well, the comment was that the game slows down; this was true with Windows Vista when Intel introduced the first re-HT. In Windows 7, this is not the case, however. The operating system knows now that are in the virtual discussions that are the cores and is capable of dividing workloads intelligently. I've tried many games and no slower with HT enabled, in fact in most cases the game can run in the same or slightly higher FPS, but the overall experience is smoother. Not much of a noticeable difference. There was a thread where people TechPowerUp BF BC2 test with and without HT and the general consensus was that the game show, in fact through the use of 8-wires and ran smoother with HT enabled to everyone who tried it. There were also sites like pc games hardware used to disable HT during the trial and recently (since Win7) indicated in an article how they no longer find they need to disable it as Windows 7 fixes the slowdown caused HT in Vista. Other sites also no longer hyper threading off during the test now.

[Balamani]

I found that while watching the task manager I am getting all the cores used in many games. If the game is 8-wire or 4 and the operating system is free to use the other 4 threads I'm not sure, but the game feels smoother with HT enabled versus disabled. Last night I replaced with a 4.8GHz 2500K 2600K. Again, the change was remarkable. I'm so happy to have my new HT, since everything just feels smoother. I retested BF BC2 and where I was hitting 100% usage of 4 cores and get choppiness this no longer happens. I have documented the same when I had my i7 860 for this is not an anomaly.

[Apple.Mac.Rocker]

I think I have all the "facts" HardOCP style, but there are some things to discuss here that can not be quantified in a bar graph. I5-750 core systems I've used here are not as fluid as our Core i7 systems. At this time I have personally tried four motherboards Intel P55 Express Chipset, and all have the same feeling with the operating system Windows 7. I've always been a big supporter of Intel HyperThreading and it is certainly a value in the product line Core i7. That said, I'm splitting hairs. Probably never feel the difference if I was not dealing with a myriad of both sets of Core and Core i7 i5 side by side all the time. "Core i7 processors HyperThreading are giving your OS user experience that is unsurpassed creamy goodness. The difference in the user interface feels is subtle, but it's there.

[Sn0w-Le0p@rD]

I'm assuming that this upturn in the 4 cores hit 100% load at the end of one of the maps (I forget which) which shows a sequence of cut scenes with huge explosions fly fighter jets, etc? Because that's the only time I've ever seen the burden of 100% hit in my 2500k@4.9ghz, and that 6870 crossfire. If so that's really not a good example of the actual game, up to 4 cores BFBC2 easily handles even with 32 players. (BF3 could be a different story with 64 players) But I definitely get no choosiness or slowdowns in any of the great battles in my 2500K. The only time in the game when the load reaches 100% is 2 seconds when choosing a place to spawn for the first time after entering a new map.