What is better than 2 cores. The whole truth about multi-core processors. Rendering 3D scenes

Pavel_A 24.05.2012 - 12:08

Hello.
You need a portable computer with a large display to work in Excel, well, sometimes watch a movie. The main thing is a big screen and a low price.
Stopped at 17 inches.
For the price stopped at the HP pavilion. There are options with different processors.
What is the best processor?
Intel Core i3 2350M Processor 2.3GHz
or
AMD Quad-Core A6-3420M Accelerated Processor with AMD Radeon HD 6520G discrete-class graphics

And what is better HP or ASUS (I like ASUS more and it has more hard, but it is more expensive and the toad chokes a lot).

Goldheart2 24.05.2012 - 01:07

Intel Core i3 2350M Processor 2.3GHz is better.

Pavel_A 24.05.2012 - 01:41

Goldheart2
Intel Core i3 2350M Processor 2.3GHz better

How much?
After all, he has 2 cores of 2.3 each, and that one has 4 cores of 1.5 each. In sum, the second one is more powerful?

Dr.Acula 24.05.2012 - 02:43

Pavel_A
How much?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/M...ist.2436.0.html
According to tests, Intel is better. And processor performance depends not only on the number of cores and frequency. Would you believe me if I told you that a processor with one core and a frequency of 1650 MHz, when performing some tasks, can work much faster than some Intel of 20 thousand?

HP or Asus - depends on the specific model.

Goldheart2 24.05.2012 - 03:03

After all, he has 2 cores of 2.3 each, and that one has 4 cores of 1.5 each. In sum, the second one is more powerful?

It doesn’t work, Intel’s performance per gigahertz is much higher, so even with two cores it makes A6-3420M, in rendering the difference is about 14 percent, but this is a good parallelization task, but if you take most standard applications where one thread is involved, less often two , here i3 2350M will just tear 3420M. And in the case of your Excel, we are talking about one thread. The graphics of the 3420M are more productive, but the 2350M has an advantage in terms of video playback in the face of a powerful asic decoder.

c00xer 24.05.2012 - 07:12

Goldheart2
but if we take most standard applications where one thread is involved, less often two

This is what you need to pay attention to. To the task. BTW, some games (like World of Tanks) are still single-threaded. It's a shame to see a 25% load on a 4-core stone.

Pavel_Crio 27.05.2012 - 21:24

Yes, Intel is better.

Goldheart2 28.05.2012 - 08:14

P.S. But you don’t need about Excel)) Install Excel 2007/2010, there is in the settings (Excel Options - Advanced):

Enable multi-threaded calculations?
- use all processors of this computer (it shows 4 for me, I have Intel Quad)
- manually (you can choose 1.2 .. depending on the cores)

In our progressive time, the number of cores plays a dominant role in choosing a computer. After all, it is thanks to the cores located in the processor that the power of the computer is measured, its speed during data processing and the issuance of the result. The cores are located in the processor chip, and their number at the moment can reach from one to four.

In that "old time", when four-core processors did not yet exist, and even dual-core processors were a curiosity, the speed of computer power was measured in clock frequency. The processor processed only one stream of information, and as you understand, while the resulting processing result reached the user, a certain amount of time passed. Now, a multi-core processor, with the help of specially designed improved programs, divides data processing into several separate, independent threads, which significantly speeds up the result and increases the computer's power data. But, it is important to know that if the application is not configured to work with multi-core, then the speed will be even lower than that of a single-core processor with a good clock speed. So how do you know how many cores are in a computer?

The central processing unit is one of the most important parts of any computer, and determining how many cores it has is quite a feasible task for a novice computer genius, because your successful transformation into an experienced computer bison depends on it. So, we determine how many cores are in your computer.

Reception number 1

• To do this, press the computer mouse on the right side by clicking on the "Computer" icon, or the context menu located on the desktop, on the "Computer" icon. Select the "Properties" item.

• A window opens on the left, find the "Device Manager" item.
• In order to open the list of processors in your computer, click on the arrow located to the left of the main items, including the "Processors" item.

• By counting how many processors are in the list, you can say with confidence how many cores are in the processor, because each core will have a separate entry, though repeated. In the sample presented to you, you can see that there are two cores.

This method is suitable for Windows operating systems, but on Intel processors that are distinguished by hyperthreading (Hyper-threading technology), this method is likely to give an erroneous designation, because in them one physical core can be divided into two threads, independent one from one. As a result, a program that is good for one operating system will count each independent thread as a separate core for this one, and you will end up with an eight-core processor. Therefore, if your processor supports Hyper-threading technology, refer to special utilities - diagnostics.

Reception number 2

There are free programs for those who are curious about the number of cores in the processor. So, the unpaid CPU-Z program will quite cope with the task you set. In order to use the program:

• go to the official website cpuid.com, and download the archive from CPU-Z. It is better to use the version that does not need to be installed on the computer, this version is labeled "no installation".
• Next, you should unpack the program and provoke its launch in an executable file.
• In the main window of this program that opens, on the "CPU" tab, at the bottom, find the "Cores" item. This is where the exact number of cores of your processor will be indicated.

You can find out how many cores a Windows computer has by using Task Manager.

Reception number 3

The sequence of actions is:

• We launch the dispatcher by clicking the right side of the mouse on the quick launch bar, usually located at the bottom.
• A window will open, look in it for the item "Start Task Manager"

• At the very top of the Windows Task Manager is the “Performance” tab, here, using the chronological loading of the central memory, you can see the number of cores. After all, each window denotes the kernel, showing its loading.

Reception number 4

And one more possibility for counting computer cores, for this you will need any documentation for the computer, with a complete list of components. Find the processor entry. If the processor belongs to AMD, then pay attention to the X symbol and the number next to it. If it costs X 2, then you got a processor with two cores, and so on.

In Intel processors, the number of cores is written in words. If it costs Core 2 Duo, Dual, then there are two cores, if Quad - four.

Of course, you can count the cores by going to the motherboard through the BIOS, but is it worth it when the methods described will give a very clear answer to the question you are interested in, and you can check whether they told you the truth in the store and count how many cores are in your computer on your own.

P.S. Well, that's all, now we know how to find out how many cores are in a computer, even as many as four ways, and which one to use is already your decision 😉

In contact with

In our time, it is generally accepted that a dual-core processor is the lot of budget computers. A "real" CPU starts with 4 cores. For a long time, this was indeed enough, and numerous software successfully used all the resources provided. Now 6-core processors and then more "vigorous" ones have become quite common. How relevant is the increase in multithreading in games? The uk.hardware.info resource conducted testing to determine how many cores are needed for games, where is the reasonable limit of increasing these computing units when choosing a processor and, accordingly, spending on by no means cheap “stones”. I offer a free translation of this test.

Purpose of the review and participants

The goal is to determine how much money to prepare to buy a processor that you don't have to worry about becoming a bottleneck in the assembled gaming system. Naturally, this testing is interesting for those whose budget allocated for the purchase of components is not unlimited, and you want to most effectively invest every ruble in gigahertz (gigabytes, etc.).

Along the way, we will try to decide what is best to invest in additional processor cores, or in a faster graphics card, or buy. It is important to understand how much a game is capable of working with multiple cores and how much performance increases (if at all) with an increase in their number.

For testing, the following stand was assembled:

• Processor - Intel Core i9 7900X Skylake-X 10-core CPU @ 4.5 GHz.
• Motherboard - ASUS Strix X299-XE Gaming.

Also, checks were carried out using an AMD processor, for which the following stand was assembled:

• Processor - AMD Ryzen 7 2700X at stock frequencies and using all available cores.
• Motherboard - Asus Crosshair VII Hero WiFi.
• Memory - G.Skill Trident Z 32GB DDR4-3200 CL14.
• Video card - NVidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti.
• Storage - 2x SSD Samsung 840 Evo 1TB.
• OS - Windows 10 64-bit (1803 Update).

The selected Intel processor allows you to disable cores and threads to simulate CPUs with different compute unit configurations.

Testing was carried out in several screen resolutions: FullHD, WQHD and Ultra HD with medium and ultra graphics settings. Running a little ahead, at high resolutions the video card became the "bottle" neck, which reduces the value of checking processors, but still gives some food for thought.

Test results

Assassin's Creed Origins (DX11)

The game scales well, but only up to a certain limit.

A dual-core processor is obviously no longer suitable, since it significantly reduces performance, and the presence of 4 cores, moreover, in a configuration with 8 threads, or a processor with 6 cores without HyperThreading, turns out to be optimal. A further increase in the nuclei, if it brings a result, is not so significant.

Call of Duty: WW2 (DX11)

The game, to put it mildly, is not very up to date with what to do with an increase in the number of cores.

The difference, although very small, is only observed at FullHD resolution at medium settings. With an increase in image quality, the minimum scatter of results can be attributed to measurement errors.

Destiny 2 (DX11)

This game needs a processor with at least 4 cores. However, most of them are unclaimed. In fairness, it must be said that this is true for low resolutions (no more than FullHD) and for medium-high graphics settings.

With an increase in the load on the video card, the role of the processor in performance decreases, and the difference between the most "weak" dual-core and the top-end CPU is reduced to zero.

F1 2017 (DX11)

Here is a similar behavior as in the previous game.

The dual-core significantly reduces performance, but, again, at not the highest resolutions. Starting at ultra settings at 1440p, the difference between the "stones" is minimal. However, the 10-core one stands out somewhat in some modes. Yes, and Ryzen feels very good precisely under high load.

Far Cry 5 (DX11)

Another game that is indifferent to the number of processor cores.

At high resolutions, the CPUs in the 6C/12T and 10C/20T configurations stand out a little, but, really, the increase in FPS is so insignificant that it does not justify overpaying for these cores.

Final Fantasy XV (DX11)

It's safe to say that the dual-core processor is the "brake" for this game in FullHD and 1440p resolutions.

However, there may be complaints about the variant with 4 cores and without HyperThreading. All of the above shows very close results. AMD Ryzen is good in all modes.

Fortnite (DX11)

The only noticeable difference is at FullHD resolution and medium image quality settings. Dual-core Intel lagged behind and, oddly enough, AMD's results are about 15% lower. The rest of the group of "comrades" is very close-knit. As the load on the GPU increases, the difference between the CPU levels out.

Ghost Recon: Wildlands (DX11)

Another confirmation that two cores are not enough in our time.

In conditions when the video card has not yet been loaded "to the eyeballs", the lack of computing units manifests itself noticeably.

You can see that in all modes 6-cores are inferior to 4-cores, and the presence of two additional "iron" cores is inferior to four HyperThreading threads. In fairness, we are talking about a difference of 1-2 FPS, and this can be completely neglected.

Middle Earth: Shadow of War (DX11)

Again, the picture is already familiar - with a low load on the video card, the dual core lags behind.

Starting with the 4C / 4T configuration, there is practically no difference between the processors.

Need for Speed: Payback (DX11)

The Frostbite engine on which this game is built knows how to manage the resources provided.

True, the most noticeable increase occurs when moving from 2 to 4 cores, and it is desirable that HyperThreading be also included. Or 6 cores in any configuration.

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (DX11)

Processors with 4 cores and above feel good.

The dual core is inferior in most options. Moreover, the greatest effect is achieved in the presence of 6 cores.

Prey (DX11)

The game does not scale well across cores.

Unless at maximum settings in FullHD, the processors line up in accordance with the hierarchy. And in 4K, a dual-core allows you to get the same amount of FPS as a ten-core. Moreover, there is a noticeable clear favor for the presence of HyperThreading, although the effect of its use is calculated in several FPS.

At low resolutions, AMD performs worst, yielding to everyone and noticeably. True, the higher the resolution and graphics settings, the more justified the use of this particular “stone”.

Total War: Warhammer (DX11)

The game is well related to the presence of a processor of 6 cores.

In most cases, this turns out to be the best option.

The Witcher 3 (DX11)

The Witcher reacts poorly to multi-core.

Almost all the advantage comes from the transition from 2 to 4 cores. And even then, it manifests itself at FullHD and medium graphics settings.

Battlefield 1 (DX12)

The Frostbite engine scales well up to 6 cores and 12 threads.

A further increase in the "steepness" of the processor has no effect. The optimal choice is exactly six-core, or, in extreme cases, a quad-core, but always with HyperThreading "on board".

AMD Ryzen looks good, although it loses in FullHD resolution, but at 1440p it shows almost the same results, while Intel "drops" to the level of AMD.

Forza Motorsport 7 (DX12)

The game also scales well, and having 8 threads or 6 cores is the optimal configuration for Forza Motorsport 7. Anything lower will be a bottleneck in the system.

The Division (DX12)

Two cores are not enough for this game.

You need at least twice as much, and preferably with HyperThreading. A further increase in the multi-core addition of FPS does not bring. And again, the presence of 8 threads or 6 "iron" cores is the best option.

Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus (Vulkan)

A game that uses its own engine and its own APi loads the video card the most, and which processor is used is not so important. A slight increase in FPS with 6 cores is observed, but the difference is within a few percent.

Conclusion. Multi-core - so how many cores do you need for games?

As testing has shown, the most "core-dependent" games are Forza Motorsport 7, Assassin's Creed: Origins, Battlefield 1 and Need For Speed ​​​​Payback. Naturally, we are talking, with rare exceptions, about FullHD resolutions and not the highest graphics settings.

The difference in performance between a dual-core and a 10-core can be up to a factor of two. The use of 4 cores reduces this handicap by half, bringing it to 50%, and the presence of HyperThreading reduces the attractiveness of the top "stones" almost to nothing. In some cases, the difference is noticeable in the presence of a double number of threads in relation to the cores.

With an increase in screen resolution, in the vast majority of cases there is no difference between the CPU, because in this case the main load falls on the video processor.

If we talk about attractiveness in terms of performance shown by processors, then the situation largely depends on the resolution at which games are launched.

• 1080p (FullHD). At medium graphics settings, processors ranging from 4C / 8T to 6C / 12T are the best choice. A low load on a video card, especially a top-end one, reveals the lack of performance of a dual-core processor. When switching to ultra settings, the difference between the CPUs is reduced. AMD Ryzen shows results at the level of Intel 4C / 8T.
• 1440p. Here, the performance of the video card affects more than the processor, which is reflected in the small difference between the processors. Even the dual-core is inferior to the strength of 7-8%, and even with medium graphics settings, the transition to "ultra" reduces processor dependence. AMD is becoming very attractive.
• 2160p. It all depends on the capabilities of the video card. The advantages of a particular CPU are calculated in fractions of a percent, maximum - 1-2%, which can be completely neglected. A powerful and expensive 10-core CPU has practically no advantages over a more affordable 4-core one.

If we move on to choosing a CPU, then, strictly speaking, even such budget solutions as the Intel Pentium G4560, Pentium G5400 and similar ones do their job quite well. And yet, you shouldn't be fooled. More powerful processors will allow you to get more frames per minute, to ensure that there is no or minimization of FPS drops due to higher computing capabilities. The time for dual core is running out.

It is difficult to imagine a situation when a company purchases a budget CPU for a top-end video card (and, most likely, for a not the cheapest motherboard, memory, etc.). It will not be possible to reveal the capabilities of the video card. Except at high resolutions.

But the option with 4C / 12T or 6C / 6T already looks much more attractive. Moreover, the 6C / 12T option does not give more or less noticeable advantages. The presence of 10 or more cores for games does not matter.

When moving to high resolutions, attention should be switched not so much to the processor, but to the capabilities and class of the video card. It is she who becomes the limiter in achieving high FPS values ​​\u200b\u200band high graphics settings.

As for multi-core, then there is a slightly different situation. If, nevertheless, FullHD is not enough for you, then, given the low scaling of games by cores, it is better to give preference to a higher frequency of their operation than to a quantity, but with a smaller number of MHz. And if there is also an opportunity to overclock such a processor, then everything is fine.

If we consider the question of what is better, a processor with or without HyperThreading, then, judging by the test results, a CPU with 4C/8T practically corresponds to 6C/6T, although the latter is slightly better at low resolutions. Well, if we take a combination of 6C / 12T, then we get an almost ideal option that will allow you to get the maximum number of FPS, and at the same time you can not be afraid of the appearance of any “failures” under heavy load.

That's all the situation today. And what will happen tomorrow, with the release of new games or their new versions? It would be nice to know how much time developers spend on scaling game engines, but this knowledge is secret, and somehow not really advertised. At the moment, this is clearly not a top priority for game creators.

On the one hand, the use of 4 cores / threads in the vast majority of cases guarantees maximum or close to that performance at resolutions no higher than FullHD. Therefore, there is no need to parallelize calculations.

As for the transition to 2K, 4K and higher, more serious computing power will be needed here, but another problem arises - the existing video processors still have difficulty "digesting" such a load, and therefore, there is no need to deal with scaling to several cores, because. k. 4-6 are quite capable of loading the video card “along the waterline”.

When a new generation of graphics chips comes out (expected soon NVidia 11th generation), then we'll see.

And all this leads to the following. Even for a top or pre-top gaming system, the best choice is a processor with at least 4 cores and 8 threads, or a 6 core option. Ideal if they still have overclocking potential.

By the way, this is also optimal for the price, because such “stones” are quite affordable. For example, a 6-core Intel Core i5 8600K will cost about 18,000 rubles, the version with HyperThreading in the form of an Intel Core i7 8700K is already 6 thousand more expensive. Incidentally, the 4-core, 8-thread i7 7700K goes for about the same price. Slightly cheaper, by about 1000 rubles, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X.

For example, the cheapest 10-core Intel Core i9 7900X, which can provide a few extra FPS, will cost at least twice as much as an i7 8700K. Let's not forget that this is a completely different level, and you will need a completely different motherboard, with a 2066 socket.

So, multi-core is not bad, but you should not forget about megahertz, games love them. Good and fast processors, high FPS and victory over enemies!

Probably, every user who is little familiar with a computer has come across a bunch of incomprehensible characteristics when choosing a central processor: process technology, cache, socket; sought advice from friends and acquaintances competent in the matter of computer hardware. Let's look at the variety of all possible parameters, because the processor is the most important part of your PC, and understanding its characteristics will give you confidence in the purchase and further use.

CPU

The processor of a personal computer is a microcircuit that is responsible for performing any operations with data and controls peripheral devices. It is contained in a special silicon case called a crystal. The abbreviation is used for abbreviation - CPU(CPU) or CPU(from the English Central Processing Unit - central processing unit). In today's computer hardware market, there are two competing corporations, Intel and AMD, which are constantly in the race for the performance of new processors, constantly improving the technological process.

Process technology

Process technology is the size used in the manufacture of processors. It determines the size of the transistor, the unit of which is nm (nanometer). Transistors, in turn, form the internal basis of the CPU. The bottom line is that continuous improvement in manufacturing techniques allows you to reduce the size of these components. As a result, much more of them are placed on the processor chip. This helps to improve the performance of the CPU, so the process technology used is always indicated in its parameters. For example, the Intel Core i5-760 is made according to the 45 nm process technology, and the Intel Core i5-2500K at 32 nm, based on this information, one can judge how modern the processor is and outperforms its predecessor in performance, but when choosing, you need to take into account a number of other options.

Architecture

Also, processors are characterized by such a characteristic as architecture - a set of properties inherent in a whole family of processors, as a rule, produced for many years. In other words, the architecture is their organization or the internal design of the CPU.

Number of Cores

Core- the most important element of the central processor. It is a part of the processor capable of executing a single instruction stream. The cores differ in cache size, bus frequency, manufacturing technology, etc. Manufacturers assign new names to them with each subsequent technical process (for example, the AMD processor core is Zambezi, and Intel is Lynnfield). With the development of processor manufacturing technologies, it became possible to place more than one core in one case, which significantly increases CPU performance and helps to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, as well as use multiple cores in programs. Multi-core processors will be able to handle archiving, video decoding, the operation of modern video games, etc. faster. For example, Intel's Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processor lines, which use dual-core and quad-core CPUs, respectively. At the moment, processors with 2, 3, 4 and 6 cores are widely available. Most of them are used in server solutions and are not required by an ordinary PC user.

Frequency

In addition to the number of cores, performance is affected by clock frequency. The value of this characteristic reflects the performance of the CPU in the number of cycles (operations) per second. Another important characteristic is bus frequency(FSB - Front Side Bus) demonstrating the speed at which data is exchanged between the processor and the computer's peripherals. The clock frequency is proportional to the bus frequency.

socket

In order for the future processor to be upgraded compatible with the existing motherboard, you need to know its socket. The socket is called connector, in which the CPU is installed on the computer motherboard. The socket type is characterized by the number of pins and the processor manufacturer. Different sockets correspond to certain types of CPU, so each socket accepts a certain type of processor. Intel uses the LGA1156, LGA1366, and LGA1155 socket, while AMD uses AM2+ and AM3.

Cache

Cache- the amount of memory with a very high access speed, necessary to accelerate the access to data that is constantly in memory with a lower access speed (RAM). When choosing a processor, keep in mind that increasing the size of the cache improves the performance of most applications. The CPU cache is distinguished by three levels ( L1, L2 and L3), located directly on the processor core. Data from RAM gets into it for higher processing speed. It is also worth considering that for multi-core CPUs, the amount of L1 cache for one core is indicated. The second-level cache performs similar functions, differing in lower speed and larger volume. If you intend to use the processor for resource-intensive tasks, then a model with a large amount of second-level cache will be preferable, given that the total amount of L2 cache is indicated for multi-core processors. The most powerful processors such as AMD Phenom, AMD Phenom II, Intel Core i3, Intel Core i5, Intel Core i7, Intel Xeon are equipped with L3 cache. The third level cache is the least fast, but it can be up to 30 MB.

power usage

The power consumption of the processor is closely related to the technology of its production. With a decrease in the nanometers of the process technology, an increase in the number of transistors and an increase in the clock frequency of processors, there is an increase in the power consumption of the CPU. For example, Intel's Core i7 processors require up to 130 or more watts. The voltage supplied to the core clearly characterizes the power consumption of the processor. This setting is especially important when choosing a CPU for use as a multimedia center. Modern processor models use various technologies that help combat excessive power consumption: built-in temperature sensors, automatic voltage and frequency control systems for processor cores, power-saving modes with low CPU load.

Additional features

Modern processors have acquired the ability to work in 2 and 3-channel modes with RAM, which significantly affects its performance, and also support a larger set of instructions, raising their functionality to a new level. GPUs process video on their own, thereby offloading the CPU, thanks to the technology DXVA(from the English DirectX Video Acceleration - video acceleration by the DirectX component). Intel uses the above technology turbo boost to dynamically change the CPU clock frequency. Technology Speed ​​Step manages CPU power consumption depending on processor activity, and Intel Virtualization Technology creates a virtual environment in hardware to use multiple operating systems. Also, modern processors can be divided into virtual cores using technology Hyper Threading. For example, a dual-core processor is able to divide the clock speed of one core into two, which contributes to high processing performance using four virtual cores.

Thinking about the configuration of your future PC, do not forget about the video card and its GPU(from the English Graphics Processing Unit - graphic processing device) - the processor of your video card, which is responsible for rendering (arithmetic operations with geometric, physical objects, etc.). The higher the frequency of its core and the frequency of memory, the less will be the load on the central processor. Gamers should pay special attention to the GPU.

Found a nasty clock limit issue. Having reached the threshold of 3 GHz, developers are faced with a significant increase in power consumption and heat dissipation of their products. The level of technology in 2004 did not allow to significantly reduce the size of transistors in a silicon crystal, and the way out of this situation was an attempt not to increase the frequency, but to increase the number of operations performed per cycle. Having adopted the experience of server platforms, where the multiprocessor layout had already been tested, it was decided to combine two processors on one chip.

A lot of time has passed since then, CPUs with two, three, four, six and even eight cores have appeared in wide access. But the main market share is still occupied by 2 and 4-core models. AMD is trying to change the situation, but their Bulldozer architecture has not lived up to expectations and budget eight-cores are still not very popular in the world. Therefore the questionwhich is better: 2 or 4-core processor, is still relevant.

Difference between 2 and 4 core processor

At the hardware levelthe main difference between a 2-core processor and a 4-coreis the number of functional blocks. Each core, in fact, is a separate CPU, equipped with its own computing nodes. 2 or 4 such CPUs are interconnected by an internal high-speed bus and a common memory controller for interacting with the RAM. Other functional nodes can also be shared: in most modern CPUs, the cache memory of the first (L1) and second (L2) levels, blocks of integer calculations and floating point operations are individual. The L3 cache, which is relatively large, is single and available to all cores. Separately, we can note the already mentioned AMD FX (as well as the Athlon CPU and A-series APUs): they share not only the cache memory and controller, but also floating-point units: each such module simultaneously belongs to two cores.

AMD Athlon Quad-Core Schematic

From the user's point of viewdifference between 2 and 4 core cpuis the number of tasks that the CPU can process in one clock cycle. With the same architecture, the theoretical difference will be 2 times for 2 and 4 cores, or 4 times for 2 and 8 cores, respectively. Thus, with the simultaneous operation of several processes, an increase in the number should lead to an increase in the speed of the system. After all, instead of 2 operations, a quad-core CPU can perform four at once at a time.

Why Dual Core CPUs Are Popular

It would seem that if an increase in the number of cores entails an increase in performance, then against the background of models with four, six or eight cores, dual-core processors have no chance. However, the world leader in the CPU market, Intel, annually updates its product range and releases new models with just a couple of cores (Core i3, Celeron, Pentium). And this is against the background of the fact that even in smartphones and tablets, users look at such CPUs with distrust or contempt. To understand why the most popular models are processors with two cores, several main factors should be taken into account.

Intel Core i3 - the most popular 2-core processors for home PCs

Compatibility issue. When creating software, developers strive to make it work on both new computers and existing models of CPUs and GPUs. Given the variety on the market, it is important to ensure that the game runs smoothly on both two cores and eight. Most of all existing home PCs are equipped with a dual-core processor, so support for such computers is given the most attention.

Complexity of task parallelization. To ensure the efficient use of all cores, the calculations performed during the program should be divided into equal threads. For example, a task that can optimally use all the cores by dedicating one or two processes to each of them is the simultaneous compression of several videos. With games it is more difficult, since all the operations performed in them are interconnected. Despite the fact that the graphics processor of the video card performs the main work, it is the CPU that prepares the information for the formation of a 3d image. Making it so that each core processes its own portion of data, and then feeds it to the GPU synchronously with others, is quite difficult. The more simultaneous computational threads you need to process, the harder it is to implement the task.

Continuity of technologies. Software developers use existing developments for their new projects, which are subjected to repeated modernization. In some cases, it comes to the fact that such technologies are rooted in the past for 10-15 years. A development based on a ten-year-old project is reluctantly, if not completely re-engineered for perfect optimization. As a result, there is an inability of the software to rationally use the hardware capabilities of the PC. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat, released in 2009 (during the heyday of multi-core CPUs), is built on a 2001 engine, so it cannot load more than one core.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fully utilizes only one core of a 4-core CPU

The situation is the same with the popular online RPG World of Tanks: the Big World engine on which it is based was created in 2005, when multi-core CPUs were not yet perceived as the only possible way of development.

World of Tanks also does not know how to distribute the load on the cores evenly

Financial difficulties. A consequence of this problem is the previous point. If you create each application from scratch, without using existing technologies, its implementation will cost fabulous sums. For example, the cost of developing GTA V was more than $200 million. At the same time, some technologies were still not created “from scratch”, but borrowed from previous projects, since the game was written for 5 platforms at once (Sony PS3, PS4, Xbox 360 and One, as well as PC).

GTA V is optimized for multi-core and can evenly load the processor

All these nuances do not allow to fully use the potential of multi-core processors in practice. The interdependence of hardware manufacturers and software developers creates a vicious circle.

Which processor is better: 2 or 4-core

Obviously, with all the advantages, the potential of multi-core processors still remains unrealized to the end. Some tasks do not know how to evenly distribute the load at all and work in one thread, others do it with mediocre efficiency, and only a small fraction of the software fully interacts with all the cores. Therefore the questionwhich processor is better, 2 or 4 cores, buy, requires careful consideration of the current situation.

There are products of two manufacturers on the market: Intel and AMD, which differ in implementation features. Advanced Micro Devices traditionally emphasizes multi-cores, while Intel is reluctant to take this step and increase the number of cores only if this does not lead to a decrease in specific performance per core (which is very difficult to avoid).

Increasing the number of cores reduces the overall performance of each of them.

As a rule, the overall theoretical and practical performance of a multi-core CPU is lower than a similar one (built on the same microarchitecture, with the same technical processor) with a single core. This is caused by the fact that the kernels use shared resources, and this does not have the best effect on performance. Thus, you can't just buy a powerful quad- or hexa-core processor with the expectation that it will definitely not be weaker than a dual-core one from the same series. In some situations, it will be, moreover, tangibly. An example is running old games on a computer with an eight-core AMD FX processor: FPS is sometimes lower than on a similar PC, but with a quad-core CPU.

Is multi-core needed today

Does this mean that many cores are not needed? Despite the fact that the conclusion seems logical - no. Light everyday tasks (such as surfing the web or working with several programs at the same time) respond positively to an increase in the number of processor cores. It is for this reason that smartphone manufacturers focus on quantity, lowering specific performance into the background. Opera (and other browsers based on the Chromium engine), Firefox launch each open tab as a separate process, respectively, the more cores, the faster the transition between tabs. File managers, office programs, players are not resource intensive in and of themselves. But if you need to frequently switch between them, a multi-core processor will improve system performance.

Opera browser assigns a separate process to each tab

Intel is aware of this, because the HuperThreading technology, which allows the core to process the second thread using unused resources, appeared back in the days of the Pentium 4. But it does not fully compensate for the lack of performance.

2-core CPU with Huper Threading shows up as 4-core in Task Manager

Game creators, meanwhile, are gradually catching up. The emergence of new generations of Sony Play Station and Microsoft Xbox consoles has stimulated developers to pay more attention to multi-core. Both consoles are based on eight-core AMD chips, so now programmers do not have to spend a lot of effort on optimization when porting a game to a PC. With the growing popularity of these consoles, those who were disappointed in purchasing the AMD FX 8xxx could breathe a sigh of relief. Multi-core processors are actively gaining market positions, as can be seen from the reviews.