Are intels CPUS with integrated graphics and hyperthreading really a big deal? AMD equivalent?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
nickspc4116

nickspc4116

Distinguished
Aug 12, 2013
15
0
18,510
I Have been reading up on hyper threading and integrated graphics on Intel cpus and am wondering if its really all its cracked up to be? I know im late to the party on this subject but some clarifacation would be excellent. Currently using an amd fx 6300.

Is it worth the money to upgrade to an intel core w/e processor? Or is there an amd equivalent to the hyper threading/ integrated gpu that intel has. I am willing to spend the money on a good cpu being it intel or amd. I just want to run next gen games flawless.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
All integrated graphics are relatively weak. AMD's igpus are much stronger, but still only suitable for low budget gaming. Hyperthreading is not very useful in gaming at this time, but it does help a lot in rendering, number crunching, and multitasking in general.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well theres more to higher performance that just CPU. You also want to look at GPUs.

Now about the question, guess I'll piece this one out to make it easier to understand.

HyperThreading: While sort of a big deal, it doesn't replace actual cores, its just not strong enough. Most games don't use it, and its only really useful on highly threaded applications or doing things that can be offloaded to some lower performing cores without impact. Highly threaded applications would be things like video editing and photoshop. Things that can be offloaded without impact are say huge number of smaller applications where core count is better than just faster cores, like loads of chrome tabs, while not very demanding, if you have only two cores instead of 2c + 2t theres a noticeable impact in performance.

Now Integrated GPUs.... Well, AMDs APUs(Basically just a CPU with a good GPU on it) have better IGP (Integrated Graphic processor) than any other CPUs out right now. However, for any serious gaming (IE anything above low/medium settings) you would be massively better off just spending a hundred bucks on a 7750/7770/650ti/etc

But for a cheap laptop to do some cheap gaming, the APUs make loads of sense. Assuming you can't afford something higher end, or you just game occasionally.

As for if its worth it to upgrade... Hmm probably not, the FX6300 is still a good CPU and is still very capable. Spending the money on a GPU might be better, though I don't know what gpu you are running so...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Thanks for the reply, mouse. Here is my setup.

-Asus m5a97 le r2.0 mobo
-16gb 2133 mhz G.skill Ripjawz ram
-MSI gtx 760 gaming edition
-Cooler master exteme psu 700 watt
-and ofc the amd fx 6300 processor

I am running all my games aside from ac4 black flag on maximum settings on 1920x1080 res.( i know this is a very demanding game). Im aiming to kill that game in fps hence the post. 😀

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Please keep in mind onboard video, even from Intel these days is LIGHT YEARS better than 4 years ago, and have significantly closed the gap in laptop-desktop performance.

AMD and nVidia are closing the gap between desktop and laptop components too. These onboard video cards are not the 2d-graphics-only components they used to be, offering 3D as a checkmark. I played WoT at about 35fps on an intel i3 with a 3000 chip, and had a good time :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hyperthreading: Not a separate core, but the operating system sees it as a separate core and can use it as one thanks to wasted resources otherwise. In short: True cores are faster. 4 true cores tend to be faster than 2 true cores hyperthreaded into 2 true/2 hyperthread cores. Which brings me to 4 true cores with hyperthreading: 4 true cores, with hyperthreading, tends to be faster with multi-core processing than 4 cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One core with hyperthreading is about 130% as powerful as one core without.

Dual core Intel without hyperthreading = 200
Dual core i3 with hyperthreading = 260
Quad core i5 without hyperthreading = 400
Quad core i7 with hyperthreading = 520
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Apart of me says no and that im just expecting too much out of my current set up, but on the other hand when i play somegames it just doesnt feel stable. FPS will just go everywhere. Example. Ill be playing bf4 on ultra w/ 4xmsaa 1920 x 1080 and it will be 60fps for a few seconds the drop to 30 then jump to 70. I just dont know really what to expect from my system i dont know what kind of performance i should be getting.
Another thing. My friend and i just built him a pc using a intel core i5 650 and i gave him my old 7770 1gb which was a huge upgrade for him. When i watch him play games it seems much more stable than mine in terms of holding fps at a solid 60 fps. Is this just how things are? Or should my system be much more stable? I know this isnt the best of examples but any feedback is much appreciated. Sorry if i veer off the current subject.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Your CPU is better than an i5 650 and only the dual core i5s have hyperthreading.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I know right? But hes not. Hes running the same res as me. Maybe there is a bottleneck with my system?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hyperthreading simply presents a single core as two logical cores to the operating system. The actual facilities that execute instructions are shared. The only things that the logical cores duplicate are the ones that hold the states of the instructions. So two instruction streams keep taking turns to execute on a single physical core. Intel claims that this helps to optimize the scheduling of the instructions and you gain some 10-30% in performance over CPU without hyperthreading. 30% figure and probably the best case scenario. The real life gains are much smaller and you need many threads in software to take advantage of this feature. This is why the gaming CPU selection guide at tom's hardware does not really recommend anything beyond an unlocked Core i5 (four cores, no hyperthreading). Sure, if you have some spare coin, then Core i7 (same four cores, with hyperthreading) is better under heavy multi-threaded loads, but performance gain compared to price is tiny. Note that AMD's CPU are built on modules, each with two logical cores, but they share a lot of parts of the same module, like the FPU, so AMD cores are not really fully fledged cores in the normal sense.

However, in the end, yes Intel CPUs are better than AMD on the top end. By this I mean, AMD as little to respond with to the Intel Core i7. Having said this, I don't see a huge difference between Intel and AMD in areas where they compete with each other in price ($200 or lower). The Core i5 and FX 8350 are somemewhere on the same level of performance, give or take, and this is why they're priced so close. Likewise, the CPU portion of AMD APUs are somewhere near the performance of Core i3, and this is why they're priced so close. In the end, there is no free lunch IMHO.


All in all, the performance of each individual core of AMD CPUs is below that of the Intel Core CPUs. AMD responds to this by offering more cores. If you run an heavily threaded application, then it can catch up with a similarly priced Intel Core CPU, and maybe elbow a little past it. If you need single threaded performance, then Intel Core will be faster.

The AMD APUs do have a little advantage over the latest of Intel's HD Graphics in terms of built in GPU performance, but the performance of the built in GPU is still so slow that APUs are a good replacement only for extremely cheap and outdated graphics cards. The $100 dollar Radeon 7750 and 7770 are still much faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Your processor might be the bottleneck, but I can't say for sure. Adding a second 760 would only increase the instability of your computer. I would stay away from SLI until you get your single card to give you a constant fps. If that constant is too low, you can consider adding a second GPU. In order to get that first card to be constant, you might need a different processor. an i5 4670 or 4670k is essentially the maximum performance CPU (for gaming) that you can get. It's only 200 and some dollars too!

The 4670 does not have HyperThreading, so it is going to act like nothing more than a 4 core, but all four of those real cores are better than any AMD core. HyperThreading will not improve your gaming performance unless you are multitasking at the same time by skyping, playing music, or browsing some other page.For this reason, it would probably be an unnecessary upgrade to get an i7 4770(these are the ones with HyperThreading). The Intel i5 4670 might be just what you need to increase the stability of your graphics card, but it is hard to say.

If you really want to run next-gen games at 60+fps no exceptions, then you really need a GTX 780 or higher. Most games do not make use of more than 4 cores (and next-gen games probably won't either) so you really don't need 6, or 4 HyperThreaded cores. 4 cores from intel at 3.5-4.0GHz will prevent your CPU from being the bottleneck of your system for many years.

Sorry for my rambling, but I hope it helps you a little :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Intel or Amd on board graphics is out of the equation. If your a keen gamer who wants to do editing, scripting etc, then you will have to fork out for I7. As it will do both the best. If your a part time gamer who does editing, scripting then i would of thought 6300 (or any vishera option) was enough. If your just a gamer and not much else you can't go past i5/k as an i7/k would be a waste of your money.

I also find it hard to believe that your friend is playing @ 60fps with that hardware (at least at 1080p).

I would of expected the 6300 to game well, however the intel is most likely doing more per clock cycle. Even an i3 can perform better than a 6300 at times. To be the actual cause of a FPS drop with 6300 is not impossible. There could be other variables that set you and your friends system apart. Games are still very much GPU driven(a good cpu can and does add to game performance) and would suspect that is where the issue is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I have to disagree, fx-9590 is better than 80% of intel's higher tier. In some games it can be even better than those crazy i7/i5. Amd is underrated
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


330 dollar price tag on that thing is ridiculous. Its just an overclocked 8350/8320.

I could grab a 4770/4820 for that price. Not saying AMD doesn't have there place, but the 9590 is silly.

I would however argue the 8320 has a place as a viable alternative to the cheaper non overclockable i5s such as my i5 3350p. For pure video encoding use if you can't afford an i7, the 8320 is a no brainer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Yeah 9590 is ridiculous but i'm just reacting on the chart it is completely wrong and misleading. A overclocked 8350 can handle i5/i7
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well it can, on highly threaded games. On older games it still loses out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom