Nice work!!! But you do realize, don't you, that multi threading as you've been using it refers to process multi threading which is reported by Windows. But when we say an application or game is dual-threaded, that means it's written to take advantage of 2 logical CPU cores, or when it's multi-threaded, it can take advantage of more than 4 logical CPU's which has no direct correlation to process multi-threading. Instead of saying that F1 2013 is "dual-core aware", we say that it is "dual-threaded". It's no different than minute and minute.... one is generally considered a measure of time, the other simply means "very small".
UT3 did surprise me, but maybe because it was updated since release??? Or maybe I was just told incorrectly by a supposed developer at the AMD Tech Tour '07 that it was dual-core aware??? The only other surprise in your lists was Shogun 2: Total War, I'm pretty sure I was told it was quad-core aware, but doesn't seem to benefit beyond 3 cores, or maybe it's just that the modern GPU unburdens it enough to not be noticeable???
The quad core is more of an investment into how long you can go without needing to upgrade the CPU. Assuming games get more complicated, the dual-core with Hyperthreading will hit the dreaded and mysterious "CPU bottleneck" sooner than the quad-core. Even though Hyperthreading does give the impression of a logical core per physical one, it doesn't actually give a high throughput. Most pin it at about 20% at best. But it's really hard to say when the dual-core will run dry and when the quad-core will.
On that... games & game engines have to be made HyperThreading aware for them to even be able to utilize HT properly or at all, so the dual-core with HT will run out of steam very quickly Vs a quad-core without. Unfortunately, the only multi-core CPU I have now, is my i7-4700HQ, but at least it has HT, so I am able to play around with HT a little bit, and I can tell you that Unigine Engine is definitely not HT aware. I don't have my games loaded onto the laptop yet, so not sure which of the games I own do or don't benefit from HT.
My results with Unigine Valley Benchmark - settings below
I didn't start playing with HT cores till I reached 3 cores - for 3 core, I used CPU 0, 3, & 6 - for 4 core I used all HT CPU cores (1, 3, 5, 7) - In Windows on an Intel CPU with HyperThreading, the real cores are the even numbered cores, and the HT cores are the odd numbered cores.
No affinity changes - FPS 17.5 - Min 10.3 - Max 33.4 - Score 733
1 core - FPS 4.1 - Min 3.4 - Max 4.6 - Score 170
2 core - FPS 8.7 - Min 3.4 - Max 14.0 - Score 364
3 core w/HT - FPS 9.8 - Min 4.1 - Max 16.7 - Score 411
3 core no HT - FPS 17.0 - Min 7.5 - Max 33.4 - Score 712
4 core all HT - FPS 5.5 - Min 3.1 - Max 20.4 - Score 229
4 core no HT - FPS 17.5 - Min 9.6 - Max 34.0 - Score 731
Also did some screenshots during each test to show CPU Utilization levels, and you're going to notice something odd when I get down to 3 core & 4 core without HT....
Single core running on CPU 4 - if you look closely you can see a couple down dips between scenes on CPU 4
Dual core running on CPU 0 & 4
triple core running on CPU 0, 3, & 6 - notice core 3 is sitting at zero utilization.
Triple core running on CPU 0, 2, & 4
Quad core running on CPU 1, 3, 5, & 7
Quad core running on CPU 0, 2, 4, & 6
As you can see the triple core no HT test appears to be using 4 cores, while the quad core no HT test appears to be using 3 cores.... No I didn't mix up the screen shots, though initially I thought I had, so I re-ran the test yesterday morning, and came up with the same odd CPU utilization graph. My best guess, Unigine engine doesn't like it when you Alt Tab out to change CPU affinity ???Also going to show why you cannot look at CPU utilization graphs with Vista or later to see how many cores a game uses....
Anyone can verify this by running Cinebench 11.5 or R15 too. In this example, I'm using Cinebench 11.5, & manually set "custom number of render threads" to 4 from "Preferences":
Notice, core 1 (a HT core btw...) has the largest load, but 2, 3, 5, & 6 all have medium to high utilization, & all cores have some utilization even though Cinebench was told to only use 4 CPU's. This is because Windows is maximizing available resources. I ran this test twice, deleting & reinstalling Cinebench after the first run, each ran had same behaviour & both scored 5.56.
I then manually forced Windows to only use real cores & ran twice again, deleting & reinstalling Cinebench after the first run, each of these runs scored 5.52
Then finally I ran it on all 8 threads.
6.32 which when calculated against the 4 CPU runs shows HT only contributing 14.5%
Unfortunately, since the laptop auto-adjusts CPU core speed on the fly, this isn't exactly "high accuracty data" & it's most likely just a fluke that I got the same score twice for two different tests.