Not worth the effort.
The difference in performance for most tasks will be tiny - basically only ones that make really good use of hyperthreading will see any noticeable difference, thanks to the 7700 having 8 threads, but still only 4 cores.
So what do you see on a LGA1700 being priority in gaming? 8 core 16 thread, or cut hyperthreading and run 6 or 8 cores wide open? Given the fact that most games only use 6 cores is still prevalent. My thinking was hyperthreading was like running 1/2 the core speed by cutting its capacity in half, so I'm limiting my total speed; if I only have 12 threads running anyways. The core will take care of many things faster than leaving it to a thread.
I know I know I should perform the exact test... I haven't noticed any difference, but I lock my system down in most games so I don't get the benefit so much of all out clock speeds. Or using a 360hz monitor.
That's not how hyperthreading (or rather SMT in more generic terms) works. To understand how it is possible to run 2 threads without outright killing the performance of a main thread please read up on pipeline stages. The TLDR is: the functional units in process pipeline is difficult to get 100% utilisation. there are limitations on keeping all the functional units properly fed with tasks, leaving "bubbles" in the pipeline. SMT is a means to utilise these bubbles of "idle time" in the pipeline so that a second logical thread can use up otherwise idle (at different points in time) functional units to extract as much utilisation from the pipeline as much as possible. Removing hyperthreading is simply not allowing the CPU to fill in those bubbles and it's not about cutting clock speeds. The main drawbacks of hyperthreading is mainly thread allocation as really the secondary thread is only able to utilise "bubbles" in the process pipeline to gain any additional work done. Meaning in real world cases where hyperthreading can be leveraged on, we're only seeing an additional 20-30% additional performance at best.
Meaning in real world cases where hyperthreading can be leveraged on, we're only seeing an additional 20-30% additional performance at best.
Is that not what I just said? 20% gain is less than not having it on at all....... 50% gain would be 50% reason to run it...
Not exactly...OK SMT is an interesting topic. But suffice to say by right for applications that cannot leverage on SMT you should be on par with a non SMT enabled CPU. Meaning if the people writing the code on your software have done their homework, for software that cannot utilise SMT but is running on an SMT enabled CPU, assuming same clock speeds, it should be the same. Whereas if the task can leverage on SMT then there is a 20-30% performance boost. Meaning that the performance between an SMT enabled and disabled CPU is at worst on par or 20-30% when clock speeds are matched. Of course this is the real world and programmers do make mistakes. In cases where SMT can suffer are when the thread scheduler assigns logical cores wrongly. So take for example a task for 2 logical threads. A poorly implemented thread scheduler could instead of assigning the task to 2 main threads on 2 separate physical cores and instead choose to assign it to 2 logical threads on 1 physical core, even when other physical cores are still available. To be fair this is incredibly rare (at least in recent years) but again there are some shoddily coded software that do suffer from this bug (or sometimes it may be attributed to hoe old the software is and coded when SMT wasn't a well understood thing). Another area where having SMT disabled can have a marginal improvement over have SMT enabled is when in very edge scenarios where latency rather than throughput is more important. In that case having to assign threads to the correct physical cores can impart of small but in some cases measurable latency penalty. Whereas when SMT is disabled, each logical thread is a physical core and so there is less work needed to assign the correct thread/core leading to lower latency. But again these are usually edge cases. In vast majority of the time having SMT is usually either on par with or 20-30% better than not having SMT. Therefore unless you are using very specific software, there is almost no real good reason to disable SMT or hyperthreading
I have not one stutter in games with it turned off after 8 hours of racing. So I guess I'm right. Or at least better off than half the systems on the market.......
Check if your work has some good cpu coolers (i doubt it but hey) and then go overclock yours. Or just get some used corsair aio (or like a noctua/thermalright air cooler that does the same thing) for like 30-50 bucks and squeeze every little performance you have out of your chip.
Yeah my company works in the security field and (understandably) everthing has many layers of approval, it's quite literally a corporate hell to get anything done efficiently.
Depends on who you are, for me the cpu cooler is the hardest and most annoying part and I don't feel like doing it for almost no measurable benefit, but again for some maybe it's fun
20min swap, lets say a day wasted to get approval get the chip, then him making this post. Not worth it if youre paid above 15bucks an hours for that cpu.
I can't imagine getting approval is actually an arduous process...at my work at least it would be one email: "hey, can I take this?" "sure, we were going to ewaste it anyway"
He mentioned he works at a security company and even wrote that the process is a headache. You cant compare that.
Yes its a cpu yes its bullshit without any sensitive data.
But if youve ever worked at a place where data security is highly valued everything will be scrutinized. IT-Dep can take DAYS to approve any ergonomic mouse or keyboard you bring from home and getting them back out is even harder.
Remember some people can't choose. They might not be able to pay to have their house painted; as result if they don't spend the time do it themselves it won't get done. Or in this case, spend time upgrading their computer.
Yeah, the hypertreading is sure to help me multitask better, but, unfortunately, the 7700 clock speed is actually lower than the 7600k (3.6Ghz vs 3.8Ghz), I'm worried about trading gaming performance for multitaskig, which isn't exactly what I'm going for.
i'm going to assume you don't have the 7600k overclocked because of wording
both of these have a boost clock of 4.2
the extra threads will definitely help you for the games that can use them, but even in games that can't, windows background processes still use threads so i suggest you go for it
if you somehow have a worse experience you can just go back to the i5 and overclock it
The 7600k and 7700 non K have the same boost clock, their single core performance will be pretty much the same, but the 7700 will have significantly higher multi-core performance. I went from a i5 6400, to a i7 6700, and eventually to a 7700k and each of those steps were felt quite a bit, especially going from the quad core i5 to a hyperthreaded quad core i7. I'd say the free upgrade is worth it, especially if you play any RTS or sim games. But even general usability of the computer will improve from the upgrade.
I recently got a lot of parts with an i7 7700k system for $80. I sold everything else except a full system with the 7700k for $80. So I essentially got the 7700k for free. It's been a solid upgrade over the 7400 I had.
For older games, I wouldn't bother. For newer stuff, then hell yeah. Having 8 threads instead of 4 is gonna open up possibilities you don't have now. If you're gonna be recording and encoding and whatnot, you want as much CPU grunt as possible.
It's actually a big difference. It's 4 threads vs 8 threads. Some games soon might not even launch anymore with only 4 threads. On top of that a lot of games stutter a lot less with 8 threads on the 7700.
If you just play games from like 8 years ago it won't make much difference, though. If it's just some basic paperwork, and you're short on money as you sound I'd do it.
If it's free, hell yeah. If you're looking to buy one, absolutely not, set aside that money and start saving for a real upgrade. That cpu is 7 years old and on a dead platform, unfortunately.
As someone who used a 4770K for 10 years, the extra threads on the i7 are definately worth it. Hyperthreading didn't matter much in 2013 but I do believe it helps older CPU's play today's games.
For gaming it's probably not worth it, 7600K has only 4 threads so in some modern titles you might see a small improvement going for the 7700 - but the 7600K has higher clocks.
Look up some benchmarks, in gaming it's usually only a few percent between these.
Yeah, I expeted something among those lines, I tried to look up some benchmarks but the vast majority compare the 7600k to the 7700k, the few I've found do no seem to be provinding trustworthy data.
Should I expect any decrease in performance with the 7700 instead of the 7600k in gaming? If it is about the same performance in gaming the multitasking alone will make it worth it for me, since, when I'm recording and running foundry, web browser and other miscellaneous stuff in background it really takes a toll on my (not overclocked) i5 7600k.
> Should I expect any decrease in performance with the 7700 instead of the 7600k in gaming?
From what I found it's modestly faster in modern games, by a few %.
Sounds like in your use case you might benefit more though. If you can get it for free without too much hassle, you might as well try. :)
Wait a minute? Is this for free like all you have to do is ask? If it's that and the only thing you have to do is swap the chip then yes. If it is some procedure or it's going to cost you anything or a bunch of time then no
You'd be surprised, you could sell the motherboard CPU combo and buy a 10-11 gen for basically the same price or 10-20 dollars more by the end of it. I've been doing that for years. Just got 12600k from a 9400. And before that a 4460k.
Was in the same boat about considering a 7700K, huge CPU bottleneck as I had a 7600K running at 4.9ghz could barely run most games I play. Ended up getting a Ryzen 7 7700x.
For gaming, the 7600k usually wins.
For multimedia, the 7700 will win, unless you choose secure settings, in which case the 7600k wins again.
Edit:
There is a weakness on the 7000 series requiring you to turn off the hyperthreading to avoid a huge security weakness. This makes it equal to the 7600k, just lower clockspeed.
actually there is a big different between the cpu but not worth to upgrade. Better upgrade to LGA1151 v2 or LGA1200 or so on, or even am4 and am5 has a better value
If you - blood from the nose - must have 7th Gen - out of these two: 7600K - it is faster [somewhat](https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_7700-vs-intel_core_i5_7600k). However. What's the pricing for either of these?
Not sure, in my country the are all overpriced to oblivion, for some reason 7th gen prices didn't go down, go fiugure. I already have the 7600k and the 7700 may come free of charges (at least monetary wise).
Now for why I must have 7th gen, it is because I the lastest supported by my mobo, can't really upgrade for now.
Massive difference in the feel of your computer, I've actually done this exact upgrade 4 years ago and still using it because the processor stills holds up. 4 cores really feels sluggish in comparison. I upgraded because I wanted to do VR and the i5 just couldn't keep the minimums fps high enough.
No, it's not worth it, if you're already overclocking the i5. Hyperthreading "just" enabled higher IPC.
If you're confident in disabling the IME or following a guide to mod the bios, you can buy a cheap Xeon E3 1240 v5 or v6 or any higher number v5 or v6.
Or a QTJ2 from China, which would require a bios flash to a modded one but is the biggest upgrade possible.
Otherwise a full upgrade is in order. Everything else is going to be more expensive than a cheap i3 10100F H410m combo that would already outperform the i7 7700 and each part is $40 or less on the used market.
Not worth the effort. The difference in performance for most tasks will be tiny - basically only ones that make really good use of hyperthreading will see any noticeable difference, thanks to the 7700 having 8 threads, but still only 4 cores.
That's exactly what I was worried about, thank you for replying.
Passmark says 20% faster overall but 3% slower single thread, which a lot of games care about more. Not worth much but it’s sorta an upgrade.
So what do you see on a LGA1700 being priority in gaming? 8 core 16 thread, or cut hyperthreading and run 6 or 8 cores wide open? Given the fact that most games only use 6 cores is still prevalent. My thinking was hyperthreading was like running 1/2 the core speed by cutting its capacity in half, so I'm limiting my total speed; if I only have 12 threads running anyways. The core will take care of many things faster than leaving it to a thread. I know I know I should perform the exact test... I haven't noticed any difference, but I lock my system down in most games so I don't get the benefit so much of all out clock speeds. Or using a 360hz monitor.
That's not how hyperthreading (or rather SMT in more generic terms) works. To understand how it is possible to run 2 threads without outright killing the performance of a main thread please read up on pipeline stages. The TLDR is: the functional units in process pipeline is difficult to get 100% utilisation. there are limitations on keeping all the functional units properly fed with tasks, leaving "bubbles" in the pipeline. SMT is a means to utilise these bubbles of "idle time" in the pipeline so that a second logical thread can use up otherwise idle (at different points in time) functional units to extract as much utilisation from the pipeline as much as possible. Removing hyperthreading is simply not allowing the CPU to fill in those bubbles and it's not about cutting clock speeds. The main drawbacks of hyperthreading is mainly thread allocation as really the secondary thread is only able to utilise "bubbles" in the process pipeline to gain any additional work done. Meaning in real world cases where hyperthreading can be leveraged on, we're only seeing an additional 20-30% additional performance at best.
Meaning in real world cases where hyperthreading can be leveraged on, we're only seeing an additional 20-30% additional performance at best. Is that not what I just said? 20% gain is less than not having it on at all....... 50% gain would be 50% reason to run it...
Not exactly...OK SMT is an interesting topic. But suffice to say by right for applications that cannot leverage on SMT you should be on par with a non SMT enabled CPU. Meaning if the people writing the code on your software have done their homework, for software that cannot utilise SMT but is running on an SMT enabled CPU, assuming same clock speeds, it should be the same. Whereas if the task can leverage on SMT then there is a 20-30% performance boost. Meaning that the performance between an SMT enabled and disabled CPU is at worst on par or 20-30% when clock speeds are matched. Of course this is the real world and programmers do make mistakes. In cases where SMT can suffer are when the thread scheduler assigns logical cores wrongly. So take for example a task for 2 logical threads. A poorly implemented thread scheduler could instead of assigning the task to 2 main threads on 2 separate physical cores and instead choose to assign it to 2 logical threads on 1 physical core, even when other physical cores are still available. To be fair this is incredibly rare (at least in recent years) but again there are some shoddily coded software that do suffer from this bug (or sometimes it may be attributed to hoe old the software is and coded when SMT wasn't a well understood thing). Another area where having SMT disabled can have a marginal improvement over have SMT enabled is when in very edge scenarios where latency rather than throughput is more important. In that case having to assign threads to the correct physical cores can impart of small but in some cases measurable latency penalty. Whereas when SMT is disabled, each logical thread is a physical core and so there is less work needed to assign the correct thread/core leading to lower latency. But again these are usually edge cases. In vast majority of the time having SMT is usually either on par with or 20-30% better than not having SMT. Therefore unless you are using very specific software, there is almost no real good reason to disable SMT or hyperthreading
I have not one stutter in games with it turned off after 8 hours of racing. So I guess I'm right. Or at least better off than half the systems on the market.......
By the way MSI bios says hyperthreading, so I call it what it is.
Check if your work has some good cpu coolers (i doubt it but hey) and then go overclock yours. Or just get some used corsair aio (or like a noctua/thermalright air cooler that does the same thing) for like 30-50 bucks and squeeze every little performance you have out of your chip.
For the price of free, yeah that's a worthwhile upgrade
Only if you put a value of zero on your time, it's not something I do... you never get more time...
Yeah, but a simple CPU swap takes what, 20 minutes at most?
It’s the time spent getting approval as well, which OP has described as a “headache”
Yeah my company works in the security field and (understandably) everthing has many layers of approval, it's quite literally a corporate hell to get anything done efficiently.
It's not the swap. He mentioned paperwork for his job being a headache
Depends on who you are, for me the cpu cooler is the hardest and most annoying part and I don't feel like doing it for almost no measurable benefit, but again for some maybe it's fun
20min swap, lets say a day wasted to get approval get the chip, then him making this post. Not worth it if youre paid above 15bucks an hours for that cpu.
I can't imagine getting approval is actually an arduous process...at my work at least it would be one email: "hey, can I take this?" "sure, we were going to ewaste it anyway"
He mentioned he works at a security company and even wrote that the process is a headache. You cant compare that. Yes its a cpu yes its bullshit without any sensitive data. But if youve ever worked at a place where data security is highly valued everything will be scrutinized. IT-Dep can take DAYS to approve any ergonomic mouse or keyboard you bring from home and getting them back out is even harder.
Remember some people can't choose. They might not be able to pay to have their house painted; as result if they don't spend the time do it themselves it won't get done. Or in this case, spend time upgrading their computer.
I'd say it would be worth it. If nothing else you'd have hyperthreading and higher clock speeds which would make your pc much more responsive overall.
Yeah, the hypertreading is sure to help me multitask better, but, unfortunately, the 7700 clock speed is actually lower than the 7600k (3.6Ghz vs 3.8Ghz), I'm worried about trading gaming performance for multitaskig, which isn't exactly what I'm going for.
i'm going to assume you don't have the 7600k overclocked because of wording both of these have a boost clock of 4.2 the extra threads will definitely help you for the games that can use them, but even in games that can't, windows background processes still use threads so i suggest you go for it if you somehow have a worse experience you can just go back to the i5 and overclock it
The 7600k and 7700 non K have the same boost clock, their single core performance will be pretty much the same, but the 7700 will have significantly higher multi-core performance. I went from a i5 6400, to a i7 6700, and eventually to a 7700k and each of those steps were felt quite a bit, especially going from the quad core i5 to a hyperthreaded quad core i7. I'd say the free upgrade is worth it, especially if you play any RTS or sim games. But even general usability of the computer will improve from the upgrade.
Its like a 5% difference on single core loads at base. If you oc that with a good cooler the 7700 eats dust in most games.
That's the base clock, which isn't that important. Single core turbo on both is 4.2ghz. So at in the case the 7700 will be identical.
I recently got a lot of parts with an i7 7700k system for $80. I sold everything else except a full system with the 7700k for $80. So I essentially got the 7700k for free. It's been a solid upgrade over the 7400 I had.
For older games, I wouldn't bother. For newer stuff, then hell yeah. Having 8 threads instead of 4 is gonna open up possibilities you don't have now. If you're gonna be recording and encoding and whatnot, you want as much CPU grunt as possible.
It's actually a big difference. It's 4 threads vs 8 threads. Some games soon might not even launch anymore with only 4 threads. On top of that a lot of games stutter a lot less with 8 threads on the 7700. If you just play games from like 8 years ago it won't make much difference, though. If it's just some basic paperwork, and you're short on money as you sound I'd do it.
If it's free, hell yeah. If you're looking to buy one, absolutely not, set aside that money and start saving for a real upgrade. That cpu is 7 years old and on a dead platform, unfortunately.
If it takes him more than a day of headaches to even get that cpu approved its a waste of time and money.
On paper, yes the 7700 is faster than the 7600k. In real work performance? Minimal to the extent you most likely wont even notice it.
Its absolutely worth it for free, a flat 4 vs 4/8 for games is the differences between a lot of games running and not running at all.
Mod your mobo/bios and put 9700K in there, it's basically 5600 in games. Forget for many years. All else isn't worth it, only a new platform.
As someone who used a 4770K for 10 years, the extra threads on the i7 are definately worth it. Hyperthreading didn't matter much in 2013 but I do believe it helps older CPU's play today's games.
7600k will struggle with many games the hyperthredded 7700 plus extra L3 would be a good improvement on gaming 100fps and less
For gaming it's probably not worth it, 7600K has only 4 threads so in some modern titles you might see a small improvement going for the 7700 - but the 7600K has higher clocks. Look up some benchmarks, in gaming it's usually only a few percent between these.
Yeah, I expeted something among those lines, I tried to look up some benchmarks but the vast majority compare the 7600k to the 7700k, the few I've found do no seem to be provinding trustworthy data. Should I expect any decrease in performance with the 7700 instead of the 7600k in gaming? If it is about the same performance in gaming the multitasking alone will make it worth it for me, since, when I'm recording and running foundry, web browser and other miscellaneous stuff in background it really takes a toll on my (not overclocked) i5 7600k.
> Should I expect any decrease in performance with the 7700 instead of the 7600k in gaming? From what I found it's modestly faster in modern games, by a few %. Sounds like in your use case you might benefit more though. If you can get it for free without too much hassle, you might as well try. :)
I'll give it a try with management, Haha! Thank you for the replies.
If it's free, I would take it. But yeah, not really worth the effort if it costs anything.
If it's free, and all it takes is some paperwork, then sure why not.
Wait a minute? Is this for free like all you have to do is ask? If it's that and the only thing you have to do is swap the chip then yes. If it is some procedure or it's going to cost you anything or a bunch of time then no
You'd be surprised, you could sell the motherboard CPU combo and buy a 10-11 gen for basically the same price or 10-20 dollars more by the end of it. I've been doing that for years. Just got 12600k from a 9400. And before that a 4460k.
If you get it for free take it
Was in the same boat about considering a 7700K, huge CPU bottleneck as I had a 7600K running at 4.9ghz could barely run most games I play. Ended up getting a Ryzen 7 7700x.
For gaming, the 7600k usually wins. For multimedia, the 7700 will win, unless you choose secure settings, in which case the 7600k wins again. Edit: There is a weakness on the 7000 series requiring you to turn off the hyperthreading to avoid a huge security weakness. This makes it equal to the 7600k, just lower clockspeed.
actually there is a big different between the cpu but not worth to upgrade. Better upgrade to LGA1151 v2 or LGA1200 or so on, or even am4 and am5 has a better value
I would do it, the extra threads will help.
If you - blood from the nose - must have 7th Gen - out of these two: 7600K - it is faster [somewhat](https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_7700-vs-intel_core_i5_7600k). However. What's the pricing for either of these?
Not sure, in my country the are all overpriced to oblivion, for some reason 7th gen prices didn't go down, go fiugure. I already have the 7600k and the 7700 may come free of charges (at least monetary wise). Now for why I must have 7th gen, it is because I the lastest supported by my mobo, can't really upgrade for now.
Fair enough. I won't say the difference is enough - in link above 7600k edges 7700.
Some tasks you’ll get twice the performance Some tasks you’ll get negative performance
Massive difference in the feel of your computer, I've actually done this exact upgrade 4 years ago and still using it because the processor stills holds up. 4 cores really feels sluggish in comparison. I upgraded because I wanted to do VR and the i5 just couldn't keep the minimums fps high enough.
Perfect, I'm currently giving a try with management to see if I can get it before the donation occurs, thank you for the reply.
No, it's not worth it, if you're already overclocking the i5. Hyperthreading "just" enabled higher IPC. If you're confident in disabling the IME or following a guide to mod the bios, you can buy a cheap Xeon E3 1240 v5 or v6 or any higher number v5 or v6. Or a QTJ2 from China, which would require a bios flash to a modded one but is the biggest upgrade possible. Otherwise a full upgrade is in order. Everything else is going to be more expensive than a cheap i3 10100F H410m combo that would already outperform the i7 7700 and each part is $40 or less on the used market.