How to enable all processor cores. What is a central processing unit? How to run all processor 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 there were no four-core processors yet, and 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 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

Exist 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 are in a computer with installed Windows system, using Task Manager.

Reception number 3

The sequence of actions is:

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

At the very top of the controller Windows tasks there is a “Performance” tab, here in it, 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

The processor is a very important part of a computer. In order to understand which processor better intel or amd, you need to determine the tasks that you will set for the computer. These can be: working with documents, viewing media files, correspondence in 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 rest of the computer.

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

In terms of bitness, processors are mainly 32-bit and 64-bit. The clock frequency is determined by the number of simple operations that occur per second and is measured in gigahertz. The internal frequency controls the operation of the microcircuits, and the external frequency is used to exchange information between the motherboard and the 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 on the market that supply the best PC hardware: Intel or AMD. Processor AMD is a cheaper option with almost the same characteristics.

If you're looking to use it for document work, entertainment, downloading and watching movies and games, a mid-range, mid-range dual-core processor such as the AMD Athlon 2 is the way to go.

If you are professionally working with graphic programs, process video files, you need a more powerful processor, for example, Intel Core i7, which will cost more.

In the event that you are an advanced gamer and install on your PC that are heavy and require a lot of resources, you are better off purchasing a four-core powerful processor, the cost of which, accordingly, will be even higher (Intel Core i5 750, i7 860 or AMD Phenom 2x4 95x).

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

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 a particular game is able to work 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 Samsung SSD 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, 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. With increasing load on GPU the difference between the CPU is leveled.

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 the best choice are processors ranging from 4C/8T to 6C/12T. 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 work 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!

Hi all! Sometimes a game or program does not work at full capacity, because. Not all cores are responsible for performance. In this article, we'll see how to use all the cores of your processor.

But don't expect a magic wand. if the game or program does not support multi-core, then there is nothing to be done, unless the application is rewritten.

How to run all cpu cores?

So, there will be several ways. By this I show first.

Go to start - run or keys win + r

Choose your maximum number of processors.

So by the way, you can find out the number of processor cores. But these are virtual cores, not physical ones. Physical may be less.

We go to the task manager - ctrl + shift + esc.
Or ctrl+alt+del and task manager.
Or right-click on the control panel and select task manager.

Go to the processes tab. Find the game and right-click on the process. By the way, the game should be running. You can collapse it either Win + D or alt + tab.

Choose to match.

Select all and press ok.

To see if all the cores are working or not, then in the task manager we go to the performance tab.

In all tabs there will be a diagram.

If not, then click again to set the correspondence, leaving only CPU 0, click ok. We close the task manager, open it again, repeat everything, the same thing, select all the processors and press ok.

In laptops, power saving is sometimes configured in such a way that the settings do not allow using all the cores.

Win7 - Go to the control panel, go to power - Change plan settings - change advanced power settings - processor power management - minimum processor state.
Win8, 10 - Or: settings - system - power and sleep - advanced power settings - power plan settings - change advanced power settings - processor power management - minimum processor state

For full use, it must be 100%.

How to check how many cores are running?

We start and see the number of active cores.

Do not confuse this parameter with the number of virtual processors, which are displayed to the right.

What affects the number of processor cores?

Many people confuse the concept of the number of cores and the frequency of the processor. If we compare this with a person, then the brain is a processor, neurons are nuclei. Cores do not work in all games and applications. If, for example, 2 processes are running in the game, one draws the forest, and the other city and the game is multi-core, then only 2 cores are needed to load this picture. And if there are more processes in the game, then all the cores are involved.

And it may be the other way around, a game or application can be written in such a way that only one core can perform one action, and in this situation the processor with the higher frequency and the most well-composed architecture will win (this is usually why).

Therefore, roughly speaking, the number of processor cores affects performance and speed.

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

In April-May of this year, significant events took place in the IT industry: the monsters of the processor market AMD and Intel showed the world a CPU with two computing cores. Intel Corporation was the first to introduce dual-core chips for desktop PCs: on April 11, it was officially announced the start of shipments of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 processor. desktop processors - Athlon 64 X2, which were officially presented on May 9th.

Intel Pentium D

For Intel Corporation, the release of processors with a dual-core architecture was virtually inevitable, since the Prescott core has almost completely exhausted its clock frequency margin, which is limited from 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 a single semiconductor chip. An arbiter is also placed there, which monitors the state of the system bus and helps to share access to it between two CPUs. Each of the cores has its own 1 MB L2 cache. All communication between cores in Smithfield takes place via the system bus.

There are currently two types of desktop processors available: the simple dual-core Pentium D and the Pentium Extreme Edition enthusiast CPU. Dual-core processors are packaged in an LGA775 package and operate at a system bus frequency of 800 MHz.

The CPU Pentium D line 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 - Pentium Extreme Edition 840, whose processor cores operate at a frequency of 3.2 GHz. The difference between the extreme dual core and the rest lies in the unlocked multiplier and the enabled Hyper-Threading technology, which is disabled in the models of the Pentium D line. That is operating system The Pentium Extreme Edition will be defined 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 the entire set of modern technologies from Prescott: support for 64-bit EM64T extensions, Execute Disable Bit security technology and a complete set of Demand Based Switching tools for managing heat dissipation 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 model Pentium D 820, since their operation requires dynamic change of the processor multiplier. The multiplier of this chip (14x) is the minimum for Prescott-based CPUs and its derivatives.

AMD Athlon 64X2

Dual-core processors manufactured by AMD are called Athlon 64 X2. As you can see from the name, the new CPUs have the AMD64 architecture, and "X2" indicates that they have two computing cores.

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

The differences between them are in the size of the second level cache. Toledo has 1 MB L2 cache per core, while Manchester has half that - 512 KB per core. Processors rated 4400+ and 4800+ are based on the Toledo core and operate at 2.2 and 2.4 GHz, respectively. And CPUs rated 3800+, 4200+ and 4600+ have a Manchester core and clock speeds 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 speed of the fastest dual-core processor corresponds to that of the older model in the Athlon 64 line (however, there is a faster gaming FX). From this it follows that even in applications that are not optimized for multithreading, Athlon 64 X2 will demonstrate a very good level of performance.

It should be noted that the approach to the implementation of dual-core 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 a single chip. The fact is that the cores in Smithfield communicate with each other via the system bus, while Athlon 64 X2 implements a slightly different method.

Even at the stage of development 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 execution units and a dedicated L2 cache, the memory controller and the HyperTransport bus controller are shared. 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 the cores with each other is organized at the same level, thanks to which the issues of cache coherence are solved without additional load on the system bus and the memory bus.

AMD dual-core processors don't need new chipsets and motherboards, it's enough just to update the BIOS on existing boards for Socket 939. It's also worth noting that we managed to fit the power consumption of Athlon 64 X2 into the previously set limits for Athlon 64. 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 dissipation and power consumption of the processor).

Testing

The editors' test lab included dual-core CPUs from both giants of the processor market - Intel Pentium D 820 and AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+. It makes no sense to directly compare these processors with each other, since they are in completely different weight categories. As an opponent, each dual-core was compared with its single-core ancestor running at the same clock frequency - Intel Pentium 4 520 and AMD Athlon 64 4000+.

Testing was carried out on stands of the following configuration.

Motherboard - Intel D945GTP ( Intel chipset 945G);
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 test, we examined the performance change in various popular applications when using systems based on a dual-core processor instead of a single-core one. Applications included in the WorldBench 5 package were used as test programs. The result of the tests is the time (in seconds) spent on executing the application.

The test results are shown in the tables.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the test results, in most applications we have a slight increase. We get a more solid gain when running video processing programs - Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 and Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5. But the dual-core processors performed best in the multitasking test, when two Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder applications are running simultaneously. Moreover, the gap between 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 is more efficient than Intel's. But don't forget that the Pentium 4 already had pseudo-dual-core technology in the form of Hyper-Threading technology. Maybe that's why the growth was not so solid.

Looking at the less outstanding results of other applications, one can assume that these programs are simply not optimized for multithreading. But after all, the processes of development of hardware and software tools never ran parallel courses. Constantly someone overtook someone and, as a rule, the "hardware" pulled ahead, and the "software" only then caught up. 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.

The testing equipment was provided by the representative offices of AMD and Intel in Ukraine.