Chances are you'll get 8 cores looking busy, whether it gives you any performance boost over a 2500k with 4 cores looking busy will only show in benchies of both chips.

Let's hope that at least 3-4 cores will be busy. And I don't mean 100% by that for sure.

I hope all cores minus one are kept 100% busy. (The -1 core being used by the OS) This would mean all available cores are used to the fullest and the game is truly multi-core.

But as Mr. Maddox said, it's a hybrid "multi-core" technology. One would think that one CPU would be used for synchronous calculations and another one or two cores be used for not time critical calculations: Sound, visual effects, AI ground movements/path finding, supply lines and other such calculations.

I hope we'll still be able to benefit from 6 or 8 core CPU's in the future, but I guess we'll see 3 cores being used for CoD.

We better abuse the cores over 4 with other tasks. Fraps? :grin:

So you say that all multicore-CPUs use hyperthreading?

Now THAT was new to me. :rolleyes:

I may be stating the obvious here but everyone knows that IL-2 uses hyperthreading too? It does. Although the improvements are limited to my understanding. It was talked about mostly during the Forgotten Battles release and then forgotten. I was assuming that IL-2 Cliffs of Dover would make use of it in some way as well.

If I were buying today... the Core i5 2500 is a great buy but the Core i7 2600 is just worth the extra money. Both are incredible bangs for the buck in higher end systems.

This is not good news...

This is not good news...

Wait infact its not right - they cannot enable or disable hyperthreading. Multithreading hey program, hyperthreading is done automatically by the hardware and the game has no control over it because it sees virtual cores.
Answer: Hyperthreading is enabled, because the cpu dictates that. Multithreading on the otherhand... Seems like a very bad omen.

I think Oleg was genuinely answering whether a hyper-threading processor (eg i7-2600K) would give any advantage over a non hyper-threading (eg i5-2500K) [so to answer Feuerfalke - not all multi-core CPUs use hyper-threading]

His answer maybe reflects the results of some testing done by Custom PC mag when the Sandy Bridges came out:

in Crysis on their test system (DX10, 64-bit, 1680x1050, no AA)

i7-2600K
min fps = 36

average fps = 64

i5-2500K
min fps = 34

average fps = 60

There you have it - Crysis takes advantage of hyperthreading too, 'but not so much' :)

(As others have remarked there is much confusion on the go over hyper-threading V multi-threading.)



...and just to confuse things further, when the 2 processors were overclocked the i5-2500K had higher min fps (42 V 37), and equal average fps to the i7-2600K (both 67). Apparently, hyper-threading doesn't respond so well to overclocking. Underlines the fact that things are more complicated than they may at first appear.


!!!

I went for the i5-2500K, but hey, it's your money :)

To be really safe wait another week and then check up on the feedback

Yea well it would have to use more than 4 threads to be "hyperthreaded", for intel cpus. Crysis is getting a bit dated now as most people were on single or early duos when it was released. On the positive side if the game uses 4 threads and you buy a i7 with hyperthreading, you can run the OS and other software on the spare threads on the cores with the least cpu load.

Depends on how rich you are, really. Are 2-3 fps worth a 100 quid to you? Buy a 2600.