Multi-Core vs. Many-Core, or why do you need multi-core microprocessors? The whole truth about multi-core processors

QX | July 22, 2015, 14:45
Not only frequency, technical process too. Modern 2-core processors of 3 GHz do not compare with the first 2-nuclear, from those that are also 3 GHz. The frequency is the same, but old just creepy brakes in comparison with new ones. As a result, the modern 2-core i3 is much better than the 4-kernel Quad Q6600. Even Pentium G is better than an old quad.

QX | July 11, 2015, 12:18
Here the frequency difference is not large, 3.5 against 3 GHz. Therefore, 4 nuclei are interesting. But of course, if the remaining characteristics also do not lag behind. Many nuclei need to archive, video encoding, etc. Taking 2 kernels also save, slightly. Another question how much will work on it. Well, it would be better if both models were specifically called. And so, I would advise you Core i3 more powerful and fresher.

Makos007 | March 30, 2015, 16:00
I'm going to grow out on the tree. Therefore, I will immediately say - your choice of a dual-core processor with a higher frequency. If the theory is not interesting, then you can not read further.

The processor frequency is, in fact, the number of operations performed by it per unit of time. Thus, the higher the frequency, the more actions are performed per second, for example.

As for us with the number of kernels ... if there is more than one kernel, the processor can determine more than one task. It is like a conveyor ribbon. One conveyor tape works quickly, but two parallel tapes on which the operations are coming out twice as a result. So in the theory, dual-core solutions will operate twice as fast.

This is a theory, but as with the conveyors, these two streams need to load something. At the same time loading correctly so that each tape worked with complete return. In the case of processors, it depends on the architecture of programs and games that use this very multi-core. If the application knows how to separate tasks for several threads (read - use multi-core processor), then multi-core can give a significant increase in the velocity of commands. And if it does not know how to task such that it is impossible to divide, then there is a lot of nuclei in CPU completely or not.

In fact, the question of the optimal number of cores is complex. The architecture of the cores themselves and connections between them is still important. So the first multi-core processors had significantly less functional devicethan modern. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the modern Windows 7 and Windows 8 OS (I do not consider here * NIX system and their support nuclear processors - A separate and very interesting topic) I didn't find it very well to parallel many tasks. Thus, multi-core helps not slow down the main processes (used by the user applications and games) due to the performance of background tasks. Thus, antivirus protection and firewall will not slow down (more precisely, to a lesser extent will slow down) the launched game or work in photoshop.

For which programs are important multi-trial. After spending some time on the Internet, it can be found out that it speeds up conversion of video and audio; Renéring 3D models, signal encryption, etc. You do not need 4 kernels to work in Photoshop and video editing. It is enough, as I said, two, but with higher speed of each of them.

teleport. | April 21, 2013, 01:30
A simple performance calculation shows: for 2 nuclear total performance 2 x 3.5 \u003d 7, for 4 nuclear - 4 x 3 \u003d 12. So the 4-core almost 2 times more powerful. In addition, he is probably modern, which means more economical and more efficient. And if only one kernel is used - it is heated less, since the frequency of one nucleus is slightly lower, but it is essential for heating.

For a video editing, the processor is most likely not critical there is mainly the resources of the video card or a special video editing board. But the processor in this also participates and if the 2nd nuclear will give one nucleus under this task, then the rest of the tasks (different antiviruses) will fight for the remaining kernel, which will lead to terrible stupidity. In short, multi-core is better.

yang. | April 11, 2013, 20:22
In this case, the dual-core processor will be more efficient and more economical in all respects.

I told why the growth of processor frequency stalled on several gigahertians. Now let's talk about why the development of the number of nuclei in user processors is also extremely slow: so, the first honest dual-core processor (where both cores were in one crystal), built on the X86 architecture, appeared as much as in 2006, 12 years ago There was a ruler Intel Core Duo. And since then, 2-core processors from the arena do not go, moreover - actively develop: so, just the other day it came out lenovo laptop With the processor built on the newest (for architecture x86) 10 nm technical process. And yes, as you already guessed, this processor has exactly 2 kernels.

For user processors, the number of nuclei stalled for 6 from 2010, with the output of the AMD Phenom X6 line - yes, AMD FX was not honest 8-nuclear processors (there were 4 APUs), as well as Ryzen 7 is two blocks of 4 kernels located side by side on the crystal. And here, of course, the question arises - why so? After all, the same video cards, being in 1995-6, in fact, "single-headed" (that is, those who had 1 shader), managed to increase their number to several thousand to the current time - so, in NVIDIA Titan V them as much as 5120! At the same time, for a much larger term of development of the X86 architecture, user processors stopped on honest 6 cores on a crystal, and CPU for high-performance PCs - by 18, that is, a couple of orders of magnitude less than that of video cards. Why? About this and talk below.

Architecture CPU.

Initially, everything intel processors The X86 was built on the CISC architecture (Complex Instructions Set Computing, processors with a full set of instructions) - that is, they are implemented in them the maximum number of instructions "for all occasions". On the one hand, it's great: so, in the 90s CPU answered and for rendering pictures, and even for the sound (there was such a lifehak - if the game slows down, then the sound in it can help). And even now, the processor is a form of a combine that can all - and the same is a problem: to paralle the random task for several nuclei - the task is not trivial. Suppose you can simply be done with two nuclei: one core "hang" the system and all background tasks, to another - only the application. It will always work, but the performance increase will be far from double, since usually background processes require significantly less resources than the current hard task.

Left - GPU scheme NVIDIA GTX. 980 Ti, where you can see 2816 CUDA-nuclei, combined into clusters. Right - photo of crystal aMD processor Ryzen, where 4 large kernel can be seen.

And now we will imagine that we have not two, but 4 or in general 8 cores. Yes, in archiving tasks and other calculations, parallelization works well (and that is why the same server processors can have several dozen nuclei). But what if we have a challenge with a random outcome (which, alas, most) - let's say a game? After all, each new action depends entirely on the player, so the "scattering" of such a load on several nuclei - the task is not simple, because of which the developers are often prescribed by the "hands" than the kernels are engaged in: so, for example, one can only be occupied only Processing action artificial IntelligenceOther respond only for surround sound, and so on. To load even the 8-nuclear processor in this way - it is almost impossible that we are visible in practice.

With video cards, it is also simpler: GPU, in fact, engaged in calculations and only by them, and the number of calculations is limited and small. Therefore, firstly, you can optimize the computing kernels themselves (NVIDIA they are called CUDA) it is under the necessary tasks, and, secondly, all possible tasks are known, then the process of their parallelization of difficulties does not cause difficulties. And thirdly, management is not separate shaiders, but by computing modules that include 64-192 shader, so a large number of shaders is not a problem.

Energy consumption

One of the reasons for the abandon from the following frequency racing is a sharp increase in power consumption. As I have already explained in the article with a slowdown in the growth of the CPU frequency, the heat generation of the processor is proportional to the frequency cube. In other words, if at a frequency of 2 GHz, the processor allocates 100 W heat, which, in principle, you can easily remove with an air cooler, then 4 GHz will work already 800 W, which is possible to take off at best, the evaporative chamber with liquid nitrogen (although it should be considered that the formula is still approximate, and in the processor there are not only computing kernels, but it is possible to obtain the order of numbers with its help).

Therefore, the growth of stirre was a great way out: so, roughly speaking, two-core 2 GHz processor will consume 200 W, but the one-core 3 GHz is almost 340, that is, the winner of the heat generation is more than 50%, while in tasks with good optimization under multithreading Low-frequency dual-core CPU will still be faster than high-frequency single-core.

An example of an evaporative chamber with liquid nitrogen for cooling extremely overclocked CPUs.

It would seem - this is a golden bottom, quickly make a 10-core processor with a frequency of 1 GHz, which will allocate only 25% more heat than one-core CPU with 2 GHz (if 2 GHz processor allocates 100 W heat, then 1 GHz - Total 12.5 W, 10 nuclei - about 125 W). But here we quickly rest in the fact that not all tasks are well paralleled, so in practice it will often be obtained so that a much cheaper one-core CPU CPU with 2 GHz will be significantly faster than a much more expensive 10-nuclear one, but from 1 GHz. But still there are such processors - in the server segment, where there are no problems with parallelization tasks, and 40-60 nuclear CPUs with 1.5 GHz frequencies often turn out to be at times faster than 8-10 nuclear processors with frequencies under 4 GHz, highlighting a comparable number Heat.

Therefore, CPU manufacturers have to ensure that the nuclei does not suffer to single-threaded performance, and taking into account the fact that the heat removal limit in the usual home PC was "Nashchupan" for a long time (this is about 60-100 W) - ways to increase the number of cores With the same single-core performance and the same heat release only two: this is or optimized by the processor architecture itself, increasing its performance for the tact, or reduce the technical process. But, alas, and the other goes all slower: For more than 30 years of the existence of X86, the processors "polished" are already almost all that can, so the increase is in the best case 5% per generation, and the reduction in the process is increasingly difficult due to Fundamental problems of creating correctly functioning transistors (quantum effects are already beginning to affect the size of a dozen nanometers, it is difficult to produce a suitable laser, etc.) - therefore, alas, to increase the number of cores is increasingly more difficult.

Crystal size

If we look at the processor crystals area 15 years ago, we will see that it is only about 100-150 square millimeters. About 5-7 years ago, Dorosli chips up to 300-400 sq. MM and ... the process almost stopped. Why? Everything is simple - first, it is very difficult to produce gigantic crystals, which is why the amount of marriage increases sharply, and, it means that the final cost of the CPU.

Secondly, the fragility increases: a large crystal can very easy to split, besides, its different edges can be sink differently, which is why his physical damage can again occur.

Comparison of Intel Pentium 3 and Core i9 crystals.

Well, thirdly - the speed of light also contributes to the restriction: yes, it is although it is not infinite, and it can make a delay with large crystals, but it is impossible to do the work of the processor.

Eventually maximum size The crystal stopped somewhere on 500 sq. MM, and it is hardly to grow - therefore to increase the number of nuclei, it is necessary to reduce their size. It would seem - the same NVIDIA or AMD could do it, and their GPUs have thousands of shaders. But here it should be understood that the shaders are not full nuclei - for example, they do not have their own cache, but only the overall, plus the "sharpening" under certain tasks allowed "throw out" of them all too much that again it affected their size. And the CPU does not only have a full-fledged kernel with their own cache, but often on the same crystal there is both graphics, and various controllers - so that in the end, again, almost single ways Increasing the number of nuclei with the same crystal size - this is all the same optimization and all the same decrease in the process, and they, as I have already written, go slowly.

Optimization of work

Imagine that we have a team of people performing various tasks, some of which require the work of several people at the same time. If people are in it two - they will be able to negotiate and work effectively. Four is more complicated, but the work will also be quite effective. And if people are 10, or even 20? There is already some kind of means of communication between them, otherwise the "Dissolves" will be found in the work when someone will be not busy anything. In the processors from Intel, this means of communication is the ring bus that binds all the kernels and allows them to exchange information among themselves.

But even it does not help: so, with the same frequencies, the 10-nuclear and 18-core processors from Intel generation Skylake-x differ in terms of performance by only 25-30%, although they must increase by 80% in theory. The reason is just in the bus - no matter how good it is, there will still be delays and downtime, and the more nuclei - the worse there will be a situation. But why then there are no such problems in video cards? Everything is simple - if the processor core can be submitted by people who can perform various tasks, then the video card computing blocks are rather robots on the conveyor that can only be executed. They are essentially "to negotiate" - therefore, with the increase in their number, the effectiveness drops slower: so, the difference in CUDA between 1080 (2560 pieces) and 1080 Ti (3584 pieces) - 40%, in practice about 25-35%, then There are losses significantly less.

The more nuclei, the worse they work together, right up to zero performance increases with increasing number of cores.

Therefore, the number of special meaning nuclei to increase no - the increase from each new kernel will be all lower. Moreover, it is difficult to solve this problem - it is necessary to develop a tire that would allow to transmit data between any two nuclei with the same delay. In this case, the topology of the star is suitable in this case - when all the kernels must be connected to the hub, but no one has done such a realization yet.

So, as a result, as we see that the incidence of the frequency is that the increase in the number of nuclei - the task is quite complicated, and the game often does not have a candle. And in the near future, it is unlikely that something will be seriously changed, since nothing better than silicon crystals have not yet invented.

Hello everyone has long been arguing in the heads of users, what is better, high frequency or number of cores? Now there are many processors and mostly they differ in or by the number of cores and frequency or all of time would so say. Because it is these two items that are the main factors that affect performance.

So see, let's show on the example, why sometimes a lot of nuclei is better, and sometimes better high frequency. See, for example, take an office computer, where you create and edit documents, use the Internet, browsers. This is all not particularly demanding tasks, but for comfort it is better to work quickly. Yes, here you can take the Core I5 \u200b\u200bprocessor and it will still work quickly. But I would take the Pentium G3258 here (this is how an example), it is a penalty, there are two cores and it can be switched out well. But it is worth it for Naaamnaya cheaper than I5. You can overclock it up to 4.4 GHz, it would be possible to say safe overclocking. And these two nuclei at a frequency of 4.4 GHz will allow you to get enough smart computer. And if you dispersed up to 4.6 GHz, then even better. In this case, the processor is especially scary, but a good radiator is of course what is needed.

Here is such an overclocking Pentium G3258 will be justified in terms of price and in terms of performance.

Now take all your favorite games. Do you often play a few games at the same time? I think not. Therefore B. large quantities No sense nuclei. But on the other hand, two nuclei will be not enough. Here the perfect golden mean is 4 nuclei, it is we have a processor I5, this I mean for stationary computers, for the laptop i5 may have 2 cores and 4 streams, then simply 4 kernels, but laptop processes are definitely weaker. For games, it is an ideal 4 cores at high frequency, at least 4.2 GHz, it is already enough for a couple of years ahead, as it seems to me. Well, for a year three so accurately. i7 is almost the same, but wider in power. You see. No faster, but wider, that is, it will be able to pull in addition to the game something else, well, for example, the second game, if you are unique and play two games at the same time ..

There is still such a moment. Regarding the high frequency and two nuclei and why it is better for an office company. Are you sure that all your programs can work in multithreaded mode? And how well they are optimized for such a regime? Well, here to say, many programs work well in multi-threaded mode, the old programs are of course work worse. But no matter how cool, the not optimized program will work best on two powerful kernels than four with not particularly high frequency, well, for example, 3 GHz. Also, the point is such, consider it if you choose a processor. So for a stupid office computer, I would take a two-core with an unlocked multiplier, so that it is good to disperse it.

In general, it seems to me that i7 is not suitable for games, but for some more resourceful tasks. Well, for example, video processing, photoshops there are all sorts of, converting something .. For games, it is also good, there is no dispute, and if you want to take a processor with a good power reserve, then of course it is better to take I7 (but it's worth it is not suiced).

Well, all the guys, all, I hope that I was able to convey my idea to you and that everything was clear to you here. Good luck to you and that you always had good mood

Many people when buying a processor try to choose something more abruptly, with several cores and a large clock frequency. But at the same time few people know what the number of processor nuclei is influenced. Why, for example, the usual and simple dual-core can be faster than the quader or the same "percents" with 4 nuclei will be the faster "Proceas" with 8 cores. This is a fairly interesting topic in which it is definitely necessary to figure out more detail.

Introduction

Before you begin to understand what the number of processor cores affects, I would like to make a slight retreat. A few years ago, the developers of the CPU were confident that production technologies that are so rapidly developing will allow you to produce "stones" with clock frequencies to 10 GHz, which will allow users to forget about problems with poor performance. However, success was not achieved.

No matter how the technical process develops that "Intel" that "AMD" was overflowing in purely physical limitations, which simply did not allow to produce "processes" with a clock frequency of up to 10 GHz. Then it was decided to focus not at frequencies, but on the number of cores. Thus, a new race began to produce more powerful and productive processor "crystals", which continues to this day, but no longer so actively, as it was at first.

Intel and AMD processors

To date, Intel and AMD are direct competitors in the processor market. If you look at revenue and sales, then an explicit advantage will be on the side of the "blue", although recently the "red" is trying to keep up. Both companies have a good range of finished solutions for all occasions - from a simple processor with 1-2 cores to real monsters, in which the number of cores over 8. Usually, similar "stones" are used in special work "computers" that have a narrow orientation .

Intel

So today intel companies 5 types of processors are successful: Celeron, Pentium, and i7. Each of these "stones" has a different number of cores and intended for different tasks. For example, Celeron has only 2 kernels and is used mainly on office and home computers. Pentium, or, as it is also called, "Penc" is also used in the house, but already has much better performance, first of all due to Hyper-Threading technology, which "adds" to the physical two nuclei two more virtual kernels that are called threads . Thus, the dual-core "percent" works as the most budget quader, although it is not entirely correctly said, but the main essence is precisely in this.

As for the Core line, then approximately a similar situation. The younger model with a number 3 has 2 cores and 2 streams. The older line - Core i5 - has already full-fledged 4 or 6 cores, but deprived of the functions of the Hyper-Threading and no additional streams, except 4-6 standard. Well, the last - Core i7 is top processors, which, as a rule, have from 4 to 6 nuclei and twice as many streams, i.e., for example, 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 nuclei and 12 streams.

AMD.

Now it is worth saying about AMD. The list of "Kamuchkov" is huge from this company, there is no sense to list, since most of the models are simply outdated. It is perhaps the new generation, which in some sense "copies" Intel "- Ryzen. This line also contains models with numbers 3, 5 and 7. The main difference from the "blue" in Ryzen is that the most younger model immediately provides a full-fledged 4 nucleus, and their eighties are not 6, but as much as eight. In addition, the number of threads changes. Ryzen 3 - 4 streams, Ryzen 5 - 8-12 (depending on the number of nuclei - 4 or 6) and Ryzen 7 - 16 flows.

It is worth mentioning about another line of "red" - FX, which appeared in 2012, and, in fact, this platform is already considered obsolete, but due to the fact that now more and more programs and games begins to support multithreading, Vishera line again gained popularity that along with low prices Only grows.

Well, as for the disputes regarding the frequency of the processor and the number of cores, then, in fact, it is more correct to look towards the second, because with clock frequencies, everyone has long been determined, and even the top models from Intel work on nominal 2. 7, 2. 8 , 3 GHz. In addition, the frequency can always be raised by overclocking, but in the case of a dual-core it will not give a special effect.

How to find out how many nuclei

If someone does not know how to determine the number of processor cores, then it can be done easily and just without downloading and installing individual special programs. Just go to the "Device Manager" and click on the small arrow next to the processor item.

To get more information about which technologies are supported by your "stone", what is his clock frequency, the number of his audit and much more can be used with the special and small CPU-Z program. You can download it for free on the official website. There is a version that does not require installation.

The advantage of two kernels

What could be the advantage of a dual-core processor? A lot in what, for example, in games or applications, in the development of which the main priority was single-threaded work. Take at least for example the game Wold Of Tanks. The most conventional Pentium or Celeron dual-cores will produce a completely decent performance result, while some FX from AMD or Intel Core use much more of its capabilities, and the result will be about the same.

The better 4 kernels

How can 4 kernels be better than two? Better performance. Quad-core "stones" are already designed for more serious work, where simple "hemp" or "Seleron" simply will not be cope. An excellent example will serve any program to work with 3D graphics, such as 3DS MAX or CINEMA4D.

During the rendering process, these programs use the maximum computer resources, including rAM and processor. Dual-core CPUs will be very far behind the render processing time, and the harder it will be the scene, the more time they need. But the processors with the four cores will cope with this task much faster, because additional streams will come to help them.

Of course, you can take any budget "Program" from the Core i3 family, for example, model 6100, but 2 cores and 2 additional flows will still give up a full-fledged four-folder.

6 and 8 cores

Well, the last segment of multi-core - processors with six and eight nuclei. Their main purpose, in principle, exactly the same as the CPU is higher, only here they need there, where ordinary "four" do not cope. In addition, on the basis of "stones" with 6 and 8 cores build full-fledged specialized computers, which will be "sharpened" under certain activities, for example, the installation of video, 3D programs for modeling, rendering of ready heavy scenes with a large number of polygons and objects and T d.

In addition, such multi-core shows themselves very well in working with archivers or in applications where good computational capabilities are needed. In games that are optimized for multithreading, there are no such processors.

What does the number of processor nuclei affect

So, what else can affect the number of nuclei? First of all, an increase in power consumption. Yes, no matter how it sounded surprising, but it is. It is not particularly worried about, because in everyday life this problem, if you can put it, noticeable.

The second is heating. The more nuclei, the better the cooling system needs. It will help measure the processor temperature program called AIDA64. When you start, you need to click on the "computer", and then select "Sensors". It is necessary to monitor the processor temperature, because if it is constantly overheated or working at too high temperatures, then after some time it will simply burn.

The dual-cores are unfamiliar with such a problem, because they do not have too high productivity and heat dissipation, respectively, but the multi-core - yes. The hotels are considered to be stones from AMD, especially the FX series. For example, take the FX-6300 model. The temperature of the processor in the AIDA64 program is in about 40 degrees and this is in idle mode. When the number of the number will grow and if overheating happens, the computer will turn off. So, buying a multi-core, you need not to forget about the cooler.

What does the number of processor nuclei affect? On multitasking. Dual-core "processes" will not be able to provide stable performance when working in two, three or more programs at the same time. The easiest example is the streamers on the Internet. In addition to the fact that they play some game in high settings, they have a program that allows you to broadcast game process Online online, there is a multi-browser with several open pageswhere the player tends to read comments looking at his people and follow other information. Provide due stability may even be far from every multi-core, not to mention two- and single-core processors.

It is also worth saying a few words that multi-core processors have a very useful thing that is called "third-level L3". This cache has a certain amount of memory, which constantly records various information about launched programs, actions, etc., you need it all in order to increase the speed of the computer and its speed. For example, if a person often uses photoshop, then this information will be saved in the memory of porridge, and time on starting and opening the program is significantly reduced.

Summarizing

Summing up the conversation on what the number of processor cores is affected, you can come to one simple output: if you need good performance, speed, multitasking, work in hard applications, the ability to play modern games and so on, then your choice is a processor with four cores and more. If you need a simple "comp" for office or homeworkwhich will be used at a minimum, then 2 kernels are what you need. In any case, choosing a processor, first of all, you need to analyze all your needs and tasks, and only after that consider any options.

Good afternoon, dear readers of our blog. Today we will try to figure out what is more important frequency or number of processor cores? What does each of these parameters affect everyday use, in games and professional applications? Does its role play, or manual acceleration brings more benefits? In general, let's delve how it all works.

The comparison procedure will be elementary to disgrace:

• advantages of high clock frequency;
• advantages big number processor cores;
• the need for one or another depending on the selected tasks;
• results.

And now let's start.

High frequencies - a sign of comfortable gemina

Let's immediately plunge into the gaming industry and on the fingers of one hand we will list those games that need multithreading for comfortable work. Only the latest Ubisoft products (Assassin "S Creed Origins, Watch Dogs 2) come to mind, an old GTA V, fresh DEUS EX and Metro Last Light Redux. These projects will easily" eat "all vacant processor computing power, including kernels and flows.

But it is rather an exception to the rules, since the other games are more demanding precisely to the frequency of CPU and video memory resources. In other words, if you decide to launch the old good doom on AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950x with its 16 computing nuclei (expensive, powerful), then you will be extremely disappointed due to the following factors:

• FPS will be low;
• most cores and streams idle;
• overpayment is extremely dubious.

And all because this chip is focused on professional calculations, rendering, video processing and other tasks in which they are "solved" and streams, and not the frequency potential.
We change AMD to Intel Core i5 8600K and see an unexpected result - the number of personnel has increased, the stability of the picture has increased, all the kernels are optimally involved. And if you dispersed the stone, the picture will turn out to be even gorgeous. All because Geyming still correctly perceives from 4 to 8 cores (not considering the exceptions described above), and further growth of physical and virtual flows is simply unjustified, you have to drive.

In what cases need multithreading

And now let's compare in professional tasks two top solutions from Intel and AMD: Core 7 8700K (6/12, L3 - 9 MB) and Ryzen 7,2700x (8/16, L3 - 16 MB). And here the number of cores and streams plays the main and better role in the following tasks:

• archiving;
• data processing;
• rendering;
• work with graphics;
• creating complex 3D objects;
• application Development.

It is worth noting that if the program is not calculated for multiplow, then Intel wore the palm of the championship only due to the greater frequency, but in other cases the leadership remains "red".

Let's summarize

And now let's reason logical. And AMD and Intel over the past few years have not badly aligned their performance indicators. Both chips are built for the latest Ryzen + (AM4) and Coffee Lake platforms (S1151V2) and have excellent overclocking potential, as well as the future.

If the primary task is to obtain a high FPS in modern game projects, the "blue" platform looks like a more optimal solution.

However, it is worth understanding that high framework will be noticeable only on monitors with a frequency of 120 Hz and above. On 60-hertz, you just do not notice the difference in smooth pictures.

The option from AMD will then look more "omnivorous" and universal, and nuclei with him more, which means that new perspectives are opening up like the same streaming, which is so popular on YouTube.

We hope now you understand what is the difference between the frequency and the number of computational nuclei, and in what cases overpayment is justified.

I believe that in this struggle, the winner can not be here, since the battle in comparisons was in different weight categories.

On this note, we will finish, do not forget to subscribe to the blog, while so far.