When choosing a laptop, should you choose a single core high frequency one, or a dual core one with

Generally speaking, dual-core ones are better than single-core ones.

Although the frequency of the dual-core is low, its application speed is not slower than that of the single-core one, and it is not advantageous when dealing with single tasks.

However, two packages have a great advantage when handling multitasking.

Maybe it's faster.

At high frequencies, the heat may be a little higher, and the temperature is extremely important for laptops.

And now mobile processors are the world of inter.

Its dual-core price/performance ratio is higher than that of a single-core.

Dual-core, although a single frequency is lower, has 2 cores, high efficiency, and low power consumption (new architecture).

The calorific value of a single nucleus is large, making it not suitable for long-term use.

Intel's analogy is:

A single core is like a chef and a pot stir-fry.

Hyper-threading is like a chef stir-frying in two pots.

Dual-core is like two cooks and two pots for stir-frying.

The structure integrates two CPU cores, the cost is lower than that of two CPUs, and the power consumption is the same as that of a single core.

Regarding the performance of multi-core chips, IBM wrote a report comparing the performance of AMD's dual-pant key core processor and single-core processor, and conducted a test on the ranking of high-performance computers, and its results were coincidentally compared with dual-core and Qingzhi single-core, about 60% higher performance, of course, not 100%, this effect is still good. The biggest advantage of dual-core over single-core is multitasking.

That is to say, when you are antivirus, playing games at the same time, while opening the Thunderbolt ** thing, while opening the web page and occasionally switching out to take a look, etc., the dual-core processor has an incomparable advantage. But when you only do one or two things at the same time, the difference between single and dual cores is not very big.

To put it simply, a dual-core is when two processors are integrated into a single chip and work together in the same clock cycle, so it has a great advantage over a single core when dealing with multi-tasking and large amounts of data.

Depending on your own needs, dual-core ones are not necessarily good.

As far as most apps and large 3D games in the last 2 years are concerned, of course, the more cores, the better. For example, open multiple online games, or run several large programs at the same time, or share a computer with your family (two monitors, one person plays games, one person watches, and also uses Thunderbolt to go down), etc., the more cores you have, the smoother it is. In the future, large-scale software and large-scale 3D games will be released, and dual-core and triple-core CPUs will basically be eliminated, and the minimum four-core CPU will be used.

Why do some multi-core CPUs have a lower clock frequency than single-core CPUs? This is normal. One is the technology of multi-core CPU, because the traditional practice of increasing the main frequency to increase performance, in 2006 and 2007 did not work, manufacturers found that it was basically the top, and every 100MHz up to the top, the cost of R&D and production was very high.

Therefore, the dual-core technology with low main frequency is switched, and the cost increase is not much, and when the main frequency is similar, the dual-core performance is stronger. Later, there were three-core, four-core, six-core, and now eight-core (while high-end workstations and servers have long used 12-core CPUs). In short, the single-core CPU has been eliminated, although there are still any, but the entry application.

Second, the number of cores is large, the power consumption increases, and some people do not need a multi-core CPU with a high main frequency, and some people want to spend less money to buy a multi-core CPU, so the multi-core CPU with low frequency and low power consumption at the same time appears.

The current CPU R&D and manufacturing technology has greatly developed compared with five or six years ago, so the multi-core processor has also exceeded 4G, such as AMD's quad-core A10-5800K, not only has a built-in high-performance DX11 level display core HD7660D, but also the frequency of each core is, and can be automatically accelerated to according to the needs of the program, overclocking can be reached. Intel's quad-core i7 3770K, clock, auto-acceleration to. Overclocking is within reach.

And the old-fashioned single-core processor, the highest clock speed only.

The main frequency of multi-core is lower than that of dual-core or single-core, and that is because of the difficulties of manufacturing technology.

As for performance, software that has been optimized for multi-core is faster with multi-core; If there is no optimized software or old software, old games, then the single-core with high frequency is fast, such as the game Red Alert 2, the quad-core is not as fast as the single-core.

Overall, though, multi-core is definitely faster than single-core.

Frequency is not everything, for example, a high-frequency single-core is like a sprinter, and a low-frequency multi-core is like an athlete in the triathlon of ironmen. Ironman triathlon runners are not the same as sprinters.

1. If you run a general program alone, with the performance of the current processor, the speed between single, dual, and quad-core operation is very fast, and the difference between them is negligible;

2. If you run a large-scale 3D game, dual-core and quad-core are better than single-core. However, if the game development is optimized for dual-core, there is no difference between the dual-core processor and the quad-core, and the dual-core may even be slightly better than the quad-core (this difference is also negligible);

If the game is optimized to quad-core, there is still a bit of a gap between dual-core and quad-core.

3. In fact, the choice of CPU, mainly depends on the production process, 32nm is definitely better than 45nm, the new one is definitely better than the old one, the same process, of course, the higher the core and the main frequency, the better, to be honest, the new CPU has long been overperformed, and the main bottleneck of the computer is still in the graphics card.

For example: i3, i5, i7 in the same high-performance graphics card, memory, play any game will not be stuck, the little difference between them is almost not felt, only with software testing can be reflected).

Oh study more CPU to know, first of all, single-core 4 and dual-core 2 You don't have to think about the problem of converting to each other Single-core 4 is 65 nm or 95 nm and dual core is 45 nm to 32 nm The process is much more advanced, and the benefits are simply the improvement of performance, more power saving, easier overclocking, level 2 cache is larger, and the instruction set supports more, these are some of the benefits brought by process progress, not that the higher the frequency, the better the CPU performance, calculate carefully There are still a lot of parameters that need to be referenced and compared, and the 4 cores you are talking about now are Intel's U 6 cores are AMD's U Bar clearly tell you why you use Intel 4 cores.

Because I used AMD before and then changed to Intel, I have a deeper understanding that I am currently using i72600, which is more than enough for the game at present, and the main graphics card is good.

If you don't understand anything, just ask.