Processor 2 cores what. How to enable all processor cores

The processor is a very important part of the computer. In order to understand which processor is better than intel or amd, you need to determine the tasks that you will set for the computer. This could be: working with documents, viewing media files, correspondence on social networks, etc. The more it is loaded, the more powerful the processor should be.

What is a central processing unit

The central processing unit is an integrated circuit that performs logical operations specified by. In addition, it controls the remaining components of the computer.

The processor looks like a rectangular wafer made of crystalline silicon in a plastic case. Processors have different characteristics of frequency, performance, bit depth, etc.

By bit size, processors are mainly 32-bit and 64-bit. The clock frequency is determined by the number of simple operations occurring per second and is measured in gigahertz. The internal frequency controls the operation of the microcircuits, and the external one serves to exchange information between the motherboard and processor.

The processor and other components of your computer must be compatible; pay attention to the interfaces present in the devices.

There are currently two competitive brands in the market that provide the best PC hardware: Intel or AMD. Processor AMD is a cheaper option with almost the same characteristics.

If you plan to use it to work with documents and for entertainment purposes, download and watch movies and games, a dual-core processor of average power and average price category, for example, AMD Athlon 2, is suitable for you.

If you work professionally with graphics programs or process video files, you need a more powerful processor, for example, an Intel Core i7, which will cost more.

If you are an advanced gamer and install on your PC systems that are heavy and require a lot of resources, you are better off purchasing a four-core powerful processor, the cost of which will be even higher (Intel Core i5 750, i7 860 or AMD Phenom 2 X4 95x).

Professional photographers, videographers or engineers are better off using a six-core processor to work with 3D graphics.

The task in general

Our regular readers may remember a series of articles that was published in 2009 under the general title “The influence of various characteristics on the performance of processors of modern architectures.” In it, we examined a certain number of spherical processors in a vacuum in order to, based on an analysis of their performance, form a general impression of the speed of real processors and the factors influencing it. In the new year, after the release of the next version of the methodology, we decided to creatively rework the previously tested method with an emphasis on greater realism of the issues being studied, that is, modeling situations as real as possible. Like last time, we decided to start with AMD products, namely with its newest platform: Socket AM3. Fortunately, the manufacturer promises this platform a fairly long life, its popularity among the user environment is great, and the company chose a name that is more successful than its competitor - in terms of alphabetical sorting. :)

The current AMD line seems somewhat chaotic at first glance (we would say that all subsequent ones too...), but the manufacturer’s logic can be understood: of course, it’s much nicer to sell a defective processor than to throw it away. And since this company produces quite a lot of modifications with different volumes and types of caches and the number of cores, accordingly, there is a great temptation to come up with a name for a copy with a “defective” core or cache, disable the core or part of the cache, and disable the entire processor - still sell. :) Thanks to this wonderful, innovative policy of AMD, in the line of AM3 processors it produces there are as many as three varieties of dual-core ones - with different sizes of L2 cache, and even with the presence of L3; two modifications of tri-core ones - with and without L3; and again three modifications of quad-core ones - with and without L3, as well as with different L3 volumes. In addition, a single-core Sempron is also available for the AM3 platform. Having summarized the main technical characteristics of the CPU for the AM3 platform in one small table, we finally have a chance to understand that there is a certain kind of logic in the AMD lineup:

So, we are seeing a fairly logical “journey” from 1 core to 6, accompanied by variations on the size of the L2 cache, as well as the presence or absence of L3 and its size. At the same time, AMD “plays” with L2 capacity on relatively weak processors (dual-core), and then the introduction of L3 is used as a universal “accelerator of everything.” You can also note two equally strange-looking processors: the Phenom II X2, which with only 2 cores has a gigantic L3 cache, and, conversely, the Athlon II X4 - which, with 4 cores, lacks it completely. In theory, the first should be an ideal option for old software without multi-threaded optimization (although then it doesn’t really need a second core...), and the second should be a processor for optimists who hope that a 4-core CPU will defeat all processors with a smaller the number of cores, regardless of the size of the cache. So it will be or not - let's look at the results...

Accordingly, the most interesting comparisons emerge from the point of view of performance analysis:

1. Increasing the number of cores with the same cache size:
   1. from 1 core to 2;
   2. from 2 cores to 3;
   3. from 3 cores to 4;
   4. from 4 cores to 6.
2. Increasing the cache size with the same number of cores:
   1. on 2-core processors (different L2 sizes, adding L3);
   2. on 3-core processors (adding L3);
   3. on 4-core processors (adding L3, different L3 sizes).
3. Variations on the theme “fewer cores, but more cache*”:
   1. 1-core processor versus 2-core;
   2. 2-core processor versus 3-core.

* - implies: for a single core.

As you can see, the soil for research is an unplowed field. True, in order for us to be able to fix our attention precisely on the influence of the above factors, removing all the interfering ones, we still needed to make one nod towards “synthetics” - regardless of whether such a CPU model exists in reality, all test participants worked at one core frequency: 2.6 GHz. However, everything is not so bad: Athlon II X3/X4, Phenom II X3/X4 with such a frequency actually exist, only 2600 MHz Sempron, Athlon/Phenom II X2 and Phenom II X6 do not exist. Testing

As mentioned above, testing was carried out in accordance with the latest 2010 methodology, with some minor modifications:

1. Since the task before us was quite large-scale and interesting, and all test participants behaved very decently, and practically did not demonstrate any oddities that were inexplicable from a logical point of view, we made a voluntaristic decision to declare all optional tests permanent - thus, they are present in the main section. and participate on a general basis in GPA.
2. Since a number of the considered processors are, so to speak, “virtual”, and are not actually produced, for this cycle, for ease of comparison, we selected our own reference (100-point) processor from among those that took part in this particular series of tests: AMD Phenom II X4 810.

Also, some may find the first topic that we decided to explore unexpected: it is obvious that it is by no means in the first place on the list of questions, no matter how you look at it. Here you just have to forgive us for some chaoticness in the sequence of release of the series: it is caused by a simple “working moment” - the series will be released in the sequence in which the results considered in them become available. Unfortunately, the extensiveness of our testing methodology causes one inevitable drawback: tests take a very long time. Accordingly, if we decided to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of beauty, the first series (logically, we should start with comparisons with the participation of Sempron), you would have to wait about another month, while this one is ready now. We decided, on the contrary, to sacrifice beauty for the sake of efficiency, and we hope you will understand us. In addition, the format of the current testing: “one article - one answer to a specific question” is quite conducive to this approach: after all, there are no “important” and “unimportant” questions, each of them is interesting in its own way, and each will certainly find its reader .

So let's get started. In this series we will look, as promised, one simple and specific question: Does a 3-core processor, in which each core has 512 kilobytes of L2 cache, have an advantage over a dual-core CPU, in which each core has 2 times more L2 cache - 1024 kilobytes? The first has the advantage of an additional core. On the other hand, each core of the second can work with double the amount of cached data. The situation, by the way, is not at all as obvious as it might seem at first glance...

3D visualization

Yes, yes, to the question of the non-obviousness of the situation. Amazingly, when visualizing a three-dimensional image, only one package out of six was able to get some benefit from the additional core, but the other 5 reacted very critically to the reduction in L2 volume. Of course, it’s clear what this is connected with: most likely, they simply could not use the third core, and it was idle. Well, let's praise the 3ds max developers for their good optimization, but at the same time let us state: they are still in a clear minority.

Rendering 3D scenes

In this group, the performance gain from adding another core is close to ideal, but regarding rendering this fact does not cause any surprise: 512 kilobytes of L2 cache is quite enough for the cores, because the scene is divided into fairly small pieces that can be calculated in parallel.

Scientific and engineering calculations

The situation is more complicated: engineering CADs, apparently, operate with fairly large volumes of information when calculating, but do not know how to use the third core (to be fair, they often ignore the second one too...). The multi-threaded optimized Maya, Mathematica (remember that since 2010 we have been using a multi-threaded optimized version of the MMA test for this package) and MATLAB performed well, due to which the overall score for the group brought the 3-core CPU to the lead.

Raster graphics

The difference of ±1 percent is well within the measurement error, so all we can do is highlight the cache-loving ACDSee and the well-threaded optimized Photoshop. And again, due to a more tangible advantage in a well-optimized application, the 3-core is in the lead in the overall score of the group.

Data compression

Our compilation test (at least it should in theory...) currently supports up to 16 threads, so the advantage of a processor with more cores is not surprising.

Java

A completely new, unknown group of tests, for which there are no statistics yet, but a rather banal result: two benchmarks gave a slight advantage to the third core, and the third did not notice any difference at all.

Audio encoding

Audio encoding speed tests since 2009 have received excellent multi-threaded optimization through the use of the dbPoweramp package, which can run as many encoding processes as it detects in the processor system. In this situation, the victory of the 3-core player was a foregone conclusion.

Video encoding

Video encoding packages also demonstrate very decent multi-processor optimization, including the previously unused Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas. Moreover, note: the two above-mentioned packages have one of the best in the group.

Playing video

The new group of tests presented one of the few surprises, reacting sharply negatively to the 3-core. Looking ahead, we note: it seems that we are talking specifically about the reaction to 3 cores, and not to a decrease in the L2 volume, since the 4-core does not show such a large drop in performance. Perhaps there is a phenomenon of categorical “indigestion” by specific software of a number of cores other than a power of two; we have already encountered this before.

Virtual machine

The vast majority of games used the third core quite successfully, only Borderlands, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis and World in Conflict are not particularly optimistic (less than 10% increase). It’s not that the trend is so clear (UT3, for example, contradicts it), but you can notice that 3 games out of the four listed are not very new.

Total score

The overall score is quite in the spirit of the times: even with a trimmed cache, multi-core is still in favor. However, not without some juicy details: 16 out of 57 tests preferred a processor with fewer cores, but a larger L2 volume on the core. There is a temptation to declare this fact the machinations of retrogrades and the laziness of programmers who are not good enough at using the resources of modern processors... and, probably, this is so. Still, to properly support multi-cores, you need to do some work (sometimes quite a lot), and a large L2 sometimes causes an increase in performance “by itself,” without additional programmer effort. In this case, we should end on an optimistic note: judging by the overall score, there are fewer and fewer lazy people among software developers. As for practical recommendations, they are obvious: in general, in the case of the Athlon II, 3 cores are still definitely better than 2.

Probably every user who is little familiar with computers has encountered a bunch of incomprehensible characteristics when choosing a central processor: technical process, cache, socket; I turned for advice to friends and acquaintances who were competent in the matter of computer hardware. Let's look at the variety of various parameters, because the processor is the most important part of your PC, and understanding its characteristics will give you confidence in your purchase and further use.

CPU

The processor of a personal computer is a chip that is responsible for performing any operations with data and controls peripheral devices. It is contained in a special silicon package called a die. For short designation use the abbreviation - CPU(central processing unit) or CPU(from the English Central Processing Unit - central processing device). In the modern computer components market there are two competing corporations, Intel and AMD, who constantly participate in the race for the performance of new processors, constantly improving the technological process.

Technical process

Technical process is the size used in the production of processors. It determines the size of the transistor, the unit of which is nm (nanometer). Transistors, in turn, form the internal core of the CPU. The bottom line is that continuous improvement in manufacturing techniques makes it possible to reduce the size of these components. As a result, there are much more of them placed on the processor chip. This helps improve the performance of the CPU, so its parameters always indicate the technology used. For example, the Intel Core i5-760 is made using a 45 nm process technology, and the Intel Core i5-2500K is made using a 32 nm process. Based on this information, you can judge how modern the processor is and how superior it is in performance to its predecessor, but when choosing, you must also take into account a number of other parameters.

Architecture

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

Number of Cores

Core- the most important element of the central processor. It is a part of the processor that can execute one thread of instructions. The cores differ in cache memory size, bus frequency, manufacturing technology, etc. Manufacturers assign new names to them with each subsequent technological process (for example, the AMD processor core is Zambezi, and Intel is Lynnfield). With the development of processor production technologies, it has become possible to place more than one core in one case, which significantly increases CPU performance and helps to perform several tasks simultaneously, as well as use several cores in programs. Multi-core processors will be able to quickly cope with archiving, video decoding, the operation of modern video games, etc. For example, Intel's Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processor lines, which use dual-core and quad-core CPUs, respectively. Currently, processors with 2, 3, 4 and 6 cores are widely available. A larger number of them are used in server solutions and are not required by the average 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 clock 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 computer peripherals. The clock frequency is proportional to the bus frequency.

Socket

In order for the future processor to be compatible with the existing motherboard when upgrading, you need to know its socket. A socket is called connector, in which the CPU is installed on the computer motherboard. The socket type is characterized by the number of legs and the processor manufacturer. Different sockets correspond to specific types of CPUs, so each socket allows the installation of a specific 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 speed up access to data that is permanently located in memory with a slower access speed (RAM). When choosing a processor, remember that increasing the cache size has a positive effect on the performance of most applications. The CPU cache has three levels ( L1, L2 and L3), located directly on the processor core. It receives data from RAM for higher processing speed. It is also worth considering that for multi-core CPUs, the amount of first level cache memory for one core is indicated. L2 cache performs similar functions, but is slower and larger in size. If you plan to use the processor for resource-intensive tasks, then a model with a large second level cache will be preferable, given that for multi-core processors the total L2 cache size is indicated. 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 reach 30 MB.

Energy consumption

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

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 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 clock frequency of the central processor. Technology Speed ​​Step manages CPU power consumption depending on processor activity, and Intel Virtualization Technology hardware creates a virtual environment for using multiple operating systems. Also, modern processors can be divided into virtual cores using technology Hyper Threading. For example, a dual-core processor is capable of dividing the clock speed of one core into two, resulting in high processing performance using four virtual cores.

When 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 unit) - 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 memory frequency, the less load on the central processor will be. Gamers should pay special attention to the GPU.

The era of single-core processors is becoming a thing of the past. Already, CPUs equipped with two computing cores have begun an active attack on the desktop computer market segment. And then, you see, multi-core ones will catch up...

In April-May of this year, significant events took place in the IT industry: processor market monsters AMD and Intel introduced the world to a CPU with two computing cores. Intel was the first to introduce dual-core chips for desktop PCs: on April 11, it officially announced the start of deliveries of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 processor. AMD’s response was not long in coming, and already on April 21, the company introduced three Opteron dual-core server processors, as well as the dual-core brand processors for desktop PCs - Athlon 64 X2, which were officially presented on May 9.

Intel Pentium D

For Intel Corporation, the release of processors with dual-core architecture was virtually inevitable, since the Prescott core today has almost completely exhausted its clock frequency reserve, limited above by 4 GHz. Intel's first dual-core desktop processors are based on the Smithfield core. In fact, it consists of two Prescott cores, made on one semiconductor chip. An arbiter is also placed there, which monitors the state of the system bus and helps divide access to it between two CPUs. Each core has its own 1 MB L2 cache. All communication between cores in Smithfield occurs through the system bus.

At the moment, there are two types of processors for desktop computers: just dual-core Pentium D and CPU for enthusiasts, Pentium Extreme Edition. Dual-core processors are packaged in an LGA775 package and operate at a system bus frequency of 800 MHz.

The Pentium D line of CPUs is represented by three models: 820, 830 and 840 with frequencies of 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2 GHz, respectively. In the elite sector there is one model - the Pentium Extreme Edition 840, the processor cores of which operate at a frequency of 3.2 GHz. The difference between the extreme dual-core processor and the rest is the unlocked multiplier and enabled Hyper-Threading technology, which is disabled in models of the Pentium D line. That is, the Pentium Extreme Edition operating system will be detected as four logical processors. The main characteristics of the new CPUs are shown in Table 1.

It is also worth noting that the new processor core inherits from Prescott the entire set of modern technologies: support for 64-bit EM64T extensions, Execute Disable Bit security technology and a full set of Demand Based Switching tools for managing heat and power consumption, including C1E (Enhanced Halt State) technologies, TM2 (Thermal Monitor 2) and EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep). The last three technologies are not supported by the youngest dual-core Pentium D 820 model, since their operation requires dynamic changes in the processor multiplier. The multiplication factor of this chip (14x) is the minimum for CPUs based on Prescott and its derivatives.

AMD Athlon 64 X2

Dual-core processors manufactured by AMD are called Athlon 64 X2. As the name suggests, the new CPUs have AMD64 architecture, and “X2” indicates that they have two computing cores.

The Athlon 64 X2 lineup today includes five processors with ratings of 3800+, 4200+, 4400+, 4600+ and 4800+, the main characteristics of which are shown in Table 2. They are based on cores codenamed Toledo and Manchester.

The differences between them are the size of the L2 cache. Toledo has a 1 MB L2 cache per core, while Manchester has half that figure - 512 KB per core. Processors with ratings of 4400+ and 4800+ are based on the Toledo core and operate at frequencies of 2.2 and 2.4 GHz, respectively. And CPUs with ratings of 3800+, 4200+ and 4600+ have a Manchester core and clock frequencies of 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 GHz. There are also options for building the last three mentioned processors based on the Toledo core, but with half the cache disabled.

Unlike Intel, AMD did not reduce the frequency of its new CPUs. As you can see, the clock frequency of the fastest dual-core processor corresponds to the frequency of the older model in the Athlon 64 line (although there is a faster gaming FX). It follows that even in applications that are not optimized for multithreading, the Athlon 64 X2 will demonstrate a very good level of performance.

It should be noted that the approach to implementing dual-cores in AMD processors is somewhat different from what was proposed on Intel chips. Although, like the Pentium D, the Athlon 64 X2 is essentially two Athlon 64 processors combined on one chip. The fact is that the cores in Smithfield communicate with each other via the system bus, while the Athlon 64 X2 uses a slightly different method.

Even at the development stage of the AMD64 architecture, the possibility of creating multi-core processors was provided. Each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of actuators and a dedicated second-level cache; the memory controller and HyperTransport bus controller are common. But the interaction of each of the cores with shared resources occurs through a special switch (Crossbar Switch) and a system request interface (System Request Interface), in which a queue of system requests (System Request Queue) is formed. And, most importantly, the interaction of cores with each other is organized at the same level, thanks to which issues of cache coherence are resolved without additional load on the system bus and memory bus.

Dual-core AMD processors do not require new chipsets and motherboards; you just need to update the BIOS on existing motherboards for Socket 939. It is also worth noting that we managed to fit the power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 into the previously established framework for the Athlon 64. The new processor supports technologies: AMD64 (support for 64-bit extensions), Enhanced Virus Protection (protection against certain types of viruses), as well as Cool`n`Quiet (designed to reduce heat generation and power consumption of the processor).

Testing

The editors' test laboratory included dual-core CPUs from both giants of the processor market - Intel Pentium D 820 and AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+. There is no point in directly comparing these processors with each other, since they are in completely different weight categories. As an opponent, each dual-core processor was compared with its single-core ancestor operating at the same clock speed - Intel Pentium 4 520 and AMD Athlon 64 4000+.

Testing was carried out on stands with the following configuration.

• Motherboard - Intel D945GTP (Intel 945G chipset);
• RAM - two modules of 512 MB Micron DDR2-533;

• Motherboard - ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe (nVIDIA nForce4 SLI chipset);
• RAM - two modules of 512 MB Corsair DDR400;
• Graphics card - 128 MB ATi Radeon X600;
• System HDD - SATA Maxtor 250 GB;
• Operating system - Windows XP Pro, SP2.

In this testing, we examined the change in performance in various popular applications when using systems based on a dual-core processor instead of a single-core one. The applications included in the WorldBench 5 package were used as test programs. The test result is the time (in seconds) spent executing the application.

The test results are shown in the tables.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the testing results, in most applications we have a slight increase. We get more significant gains when running video processing programs - Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 and Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5. But dual-core processors performed best in the multitasking test, when two Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder applications were launched simultaneously. Moreover, the gap between the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and its single-core ancestor was 82.2%, and the difference between Intel processors in this test was 47.1%. At first glance, AMD's dual-core technology is more efficient than Intel's. But do not forget that the Pentium 4 already had pseudo-dual-core technology in the form of Hyper-Threading technology. Perhaps that is why the increase was not so significant.

Looking at the less outstanding results of the remaining applications, one can assume that these programs are simply not optimized for multithreading. But the processes of development of hardware and software have never followed parallel courses. Someone was constantly overtaking someone else and, as a rule, the hardware pulled ahead, and the software only caught up later. Therefore, we can assume that in the near future software manufacturers will try to optimize as many of their products as possible for multithreading. And then dual-core processors will be able to fully reveal their potential.

Equipment for testing was provided by representative offices of AMD and Intel in Ukraine.

Nowadays, 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 sufficient, and numerous software successfully used all the resources provided. Nowadays, 6-core processors and then more “core” ones have become quite common. How important is it to increase multithreading in games? The resource uk.hardware.info conducted testing to determine how many cores are needed for games, where is the limit of reasonableness of increasing these computing units when choosing a processor and, accordingly, spending on not cheap “stones”. I offer a free translation of this testing.

Purpose of the audit and participants

The goal is to determine how much money to prepare to buy a processor that you won’t have to worry about becoming a bottleneck in the gaming system you’re building. Naturally, this testing is interesting for those whose budget allocated for the purchase of components is not unlimited, and who wants 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 a faster video card, or buy. It is important to understand how capable a particular game is of working with multiple cores and how much performance increases (if at all) as their number increases.

The following stand was assembled for testing:

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

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

• Processor – AMD Ryzen 7 2700X at standard frequencies and using all available cores.
• Motherboard - Asus Crosshair VII Hero WiFi.
• Memory - G.Skill Trident Z 32 GB 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. Looking ahead a little, in high resolutions the video card became the bottleneck, 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 to a certain extent.

A dual-core processor is clearly no longer suitable, since it significantly reduces performance, and the optimal solution is to have 4 cores, and in a configuration with 8 threads, or a processor with 6 cores without HyperThreading. A further increase in cores, if it brings results, is no longer so significant.

Call of Duty: WW2 (DX11)

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

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

Destiny 2 (DX11)

This game requires a processor with at least 4 cores. However, most of them turn out to be unclaimed. To be fair, it must be said that this is true for low resolutions (no more than FullHD) and for medium-high graphics settings.

As the load on the video card increases, the role of the processor in performance decreases, and the difference between the weakest dual-core processor and the top-end CPU is reduced to zero.

F1 2017 (DX11)

The behavior here is similar to the previous game.

The dual-core system noticeably reduces performance, but, again, at not the highest resolutions. Starting with ultra settings at 1440p, the difference between the “stones” is minimal. However, the 10-core engine stands out somewhat in some modes. And Ryzen feels very good under high load.

Far Cry 5 (DX11)

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

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

Final Fantasy XV (DX11)

We can say with confidence that the dual-core processor is a “brake” for this game in FullHD and 1440p resolutions.

However, there may be complaints about the option with 4 cores and without HyperThreading. Everything above shows very similar 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 lower by about 15%. The rest of the group of “comrades” remains very united. As the load on the GPU increases, the difference between the CPUs is leveled out.

Ghost Recon: Wildlands (DX11)

Another confirmation that two cores are no longer enough in our times.

In conditions where the video card is not yet fully loaded, the lack of computing units is noticeable.

You can notice that in all modes 6-cores are inferior to 4-cores, and the presence of two additional “hard” cores is inferior to four HyperThreading threads. To be fair, we are talking about a difference of 1-2 FPS, and this can be completely neglected.

Middle Earth: Shadow of War (DX11)

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

Starting from 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 it provides.

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

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (DX11)

Processors with 4 cores and higher perform well.

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

Prey (DX11)

The game does not scale well across cores.

Except that at maximum settings in FullHD, the processors are arranged in accordance with the hierarchy. And in 4K, a dual-core processor allows you to get the same number of FPS as a ten-core processor. Moreover, there is a clear favor towards the presence of HyperThreading, although the effect of its use is calculated in several FPS.

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

Total War: Warhammer (DX11)

The game responds well to the presence of a 6-core processor.

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

The Witcher 3 (DX11)

The Witcher doesn't respond well to multi-cores.

Almost all the benefits come from moving from 2 to 4 cores. And even then, this 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 no longer has any effect. The optimal choice turns out to be six-core processors, or, as a last resort, a quad-core processor, 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 “sinks” to AMD’s level.

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. Further increase in multi-core does not bring any increase in FPS. And again, having 8 threads or 6 “hard” 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 “kernel-dependent” games are Forza Motorsport 7, Assassin's Creed: Origins, Battlefield 1 and Need For Speed ​​Payback. Naturally, with rare exceptions, we are talking 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 twofold. The use of 4 cores reduces this handicap by half, bringing it to 50%, and the presence of HyperThreading reduces the attractiveness of top-end “stones” to almost nothing. In some cases, the difference is noticeable when there is twice the number of threads relative to the cores.

As screen resolution increases, in the vast majority of cases there is no difference between CPUs, since in this case the main load falls on the video processor.

If we talk about attractiveness from the point of view of the performance shown by processors, the situation largely depends on the resolution at which games are launched.

• 1080p (FullHD). At medium graphics settings, the optimal choice is processors ranging from 4C/8T to 6C/12T. Low load on a video card, especially a top-end one, reveals the lack of performance of a dual-core processor. When you switch to ultra settings, the difference between CPUs decreases. AMD Ryzen shows results at the level of Intel 4C/8T.
• 1440p. Here the performance of the video card is more affected than the processor, which is reflected in the small difference between the processors. Even a dual-core processor is inferior by 7-8%, and even with medium graphics settings, switching 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 cope with their task quite well. And yet you shouldn’t delude yourself. More powerful processors will allow you to get more frames per minute, ensure the absence or minimization of FPS drop due to higher computing capabilities. The time of dual-core processors is running out.

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

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

When moving to high resolutions, attention should shift not so much to the processor, but to the capabilities and class of the video card. It is this that becomes the limiter in achieving high FPS values ​​and high graphics settings.

As for multi-cores, a slightly different situation arises here. If, nevertheless, FullHD is not enough for you, then, given the low scaling of games by core, it is better to give preference to a higher frequency of their operation rather than a number, but with a lower number of MHz. And if it is also possible to overclock such a processor, then everything will be 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 is almost the same as a 6C/6T, although the latter is slightly better at low resolutions. Well, if we take the 6C/12T combination, we get an almost ideal option that will allow you to get the maximum amount of FPS, and at the same time you don’t have to be afraid of any “failures” appearing under heavy load.

This is all the situation today. What will happen tomorrow, with the release of new games or new versions of them? It would be nice to know how much time developers devote to scaling game engines, but this knowledge is secret, and somehow not particularly advertised. This is clearly not a top priority for game creators at the moment.

On the one hand, the use of 4 cores/threads in the vast majority of cases guarantees maximum or close to maximum performance in 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, but another problem arises - existing video processors still have difficulty “digesting” such a load, and therefore there is no need to scale over several cores, i.e. K. 4-6 are quite capable of loading the video card “along the waterline”.

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

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

This, by the way, is also optimal in 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. By the way, the 4-core 8-thread i7 7700K costs about the same price. A little cheaper, about 1000 rubles, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X.

For example, the cheapest 10-core Intel Core i9 7900X, which can give an extra few FPS, will cost at least twice as much as the 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 shouldn’t forget about megahertz, games love them. Good and fast processors, high FPS and victory over enemies!