Playing games, does the CPU pursue high clock speed or dual core?

Definitely 5200 is the best, the winner of the "ZOL 2008 Best Product of the Year Award" is now **cheap, and the main frequency of 2500 is also quite good! Different models, different processes, not just look at the high frequency, his speed is fast.

Single-core is already lagging behind, and it's not much worse than performance.

5200 L2 Cache 2MB Celeron D 347 L2 Cache 512K 4 times worse This is also a very important factor in determining speed!

Playing games doesn't require a lot of CPU.

But not talking about the CPU, among the three you said, the 5200 is currently the most cost-effective, with 45nm technology, low power and good heat dissipation, and it is very easy to overclock.

If you want to play Diablo III or something like that, it is recommended to use the graphics card on 9800GTX or HD4850Look at personal hobbies. I use the Blaupunkt HD4850 but the driver of the A card is a headache. Therefore, it is recommended to use 9800GTX, and the reason for the graphics card is the problem of heat dissipation.

Onda 9600GSO 384M is enough, it is recommended that you do not want it.

In addition, you can at least tell me how much your graphics card, motherboard and CPU budget is, so that others can recommend it to you.

The main thing is that the graphics card is better, and the effect of your quad-core high-end CPU with low-end graphics card is much lower than that of mid-range CPU with high-end graphics card, for example, if you use Q8200 with 9500 alone, it is 1240+400=1640, which is not as good as E5200+9800GT=490+799=1200, and the game performance gap between the former and the latter is more than 30%.

Nowadays, many games pursue physical effects, so multi-core is recommended, and it is currently 2 cores, such as Call of Duty, and single-core is really not good in daily applications, after all, you need to do other things while playing (antivirus software and the like).

HP cq40-313ax discrete graphics card and memory meet the requirements The CPU is AMD dual-core, but the main frequency is only Playing the unequaled snake can't afford to play, and the effect is stuck to death in all levels. Because the unequaled snake recommends configuring the CPU frequency to my 07 desktop computer that I have in 07, it will play smoothly to death, and the CPU is Celeron D memory 1G graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7300

You are wrong about this, the performance is far inferior, cq40, you ignore a little graphics card, the same is a discrete graphics card, the performance is dozens of times worse.

Intel Pentium E5200 clocked at 495 RMB

Not bad. The main thing is the graphics card, you should at least 9600 4850 or above.

If you play games, the key is to look at your CPU's processing power,I personally think it's good for dual cores,It's not good for high frequency effect,AMD Szenron 2500+ has only the main frequency, but its gameplay is better than the high frequency of Celeron D,And the stability of the low frequency is better。 Just use 5200, use 2200 if you have less money, in fact, Celeron E1200 is OK, I will use it, cheap and easy to use.

First of all, you have to be clear,Game performance not only depends on the CPU,It also has a lot to do with the memory graphics card, etc.,Your question I think is like this,In the case of the same main frequency,Of course, the dual-core should be better!

In terms of FPS fluctuations in games, processors with high clock speeds perform better than low clock speeds, but the magnitude is not as significant as the increase in clock speeds.

For CPUs of the same grade, the increase in the main frequency will help users get a relatively high FPS in actual games, but if you want to get a more stable FPS, you need to buy or upgrade the core and more advanced processors, and blindly increasing the frequency has limited effect.

The processor with high clock speed has faster processing speed, which is more suitable for processing in multi-tasking environments. If the main frequency of the processor is too low, it is easy to freeze and so on when the operation is turned on at the same time.

CPU is not the more cores the better.

In addition to the number of cores, the performance of the CPU is also affected by the CPU frequency, architecture, presence or absence of hyperthreading, and boost frequency policies. For example, a 16-core CPU is not as fast as an 8-core CPU, because there are too many cores that cannot be allocated properly, so it runs slower.

Intel dominates the CPU market and implements strict product-level classification standards. The mainstream is the most popular i5 processor, which has always been a 4-core and 4-thread processor. As a result, most programs and software are set to 4-core optimization at the beginning of development.

It depends on what kind of game, some games are optimized for multi-core, so the stronger the multi-core performance, the better.

Some games don't have any multi-core optimization, only eat one or two threads, obviously a single core is important, generally speaking, large single machines are generally more performance-eating, so they also pay more attention to multi-thread optimization, for example, GTA5 is not afraid of power consumption, if you use FX8300, it is very good. The opposite is true for mainstream online games, such as SC2, the performance of the i3-6100 is much stronger than that of the i5-6400.

The main frequency and the number of cores are two different parameters, and the overall performance of a CPU cannot be determined simply by multiplication, no matter how many cores there are, the main frequency is the same.

The CPU determines its execution behavior based on the instructions extracted from the memory. During the decoding phase, the instruction is disassembled into meaningful fragments. Interpret numerical values into instructions according to the CPU's instruction set architecture (ISA) definition.

Part of the command value is the opcode, which indicates which operations to perform. Other values usually provide the necessary information for the instruction, such as the goal of an addition operation.

Online games are all single-core, and single-player games are multi-core.

Therefore, dual-core online games like E8X00 are definitely not weaker than AMD's quad-core.

In the same way, AMD's quad-core playing large stand-alone machine is definitely stronger than the E8x00

A single core is a CPU that integrates a computing core; Dual-core is two computing cores, which is equivalent to two CPUs working at the same time; The quad-core is four computing cores, which is equivalent to four CPUs working at the same time; Simple analogy: To complete the same task, by one production line or by two slightly slower lines or by four slower lines, although the production speed of the production line is slow, the final completion time of the task may be the shortest due to the large number of production lines going on at the same time. Generally speaking, if you often run large software or games, or often do graphic design, you can use a multi-core processor as much as possible to effectively improve the processing speed.

No, many games don't perfectly support 4 cores, let alone 6 or 8 cores.

In the single-core era, the main frequency is the computing speed of the processor, and in the dual-core era, it is the computing speed of each core. In the single-core period, the main frequency indicates the good and bad, fast and slow of the processor, and the higher the frequency, the faster the speed. than has an absolute advantage.

However, in the dual-core era and even the current quad-core, 6-core and 8-core era, the main frequency does not fully reflect the speed of a processor, depending on the architecture and type of technology adopted by the processor, as well as the number of cores of the processor. Of course, the higher the clock speed of the same type of processor, the faster.

The CPU will automatically decide how many cores to run with according to the size of your program, if you run a program that can't solve the problem with a single core, it will start the dual core, if the dual core can't solve the problem, it will start the triple core, and so on.

The CPU has been overperformed as early as three years ago, which means that the high-end CPU of the current game 3 years ago has been satisfied, so you don't have to worry too much about the CPU when playing games.

Intel's CPU single-core performance is powerful, AMD's CPU uses multi-core and multi-threaded large cache to solve its own single-core performance shortcomings, so it can't be said that the more cores, the better, Intel i3 third-generation dual-core processor, better performance than most AMD quad-core processors, and the price is more expensive.

Playing games isn't just looking at the core of the CPU! It depends on the overall configuration. The game has a recommended configuration, and it should be most appropriate to configure the computer according to the recommended configuration.

Multi-core is working together and multi-core CPUs are better than single-core, on the same platform.

The explanation is that the water from one tap is easy to block, and the water from multiple tap outlets is not easy to block, and this is multicore.

Most of the large-scale single-player games are 4-core optimized (such as Battlefield 3), for example, the AMD quad-core 955 is stronger than the Intel dual-core i3, and if you play online games (most dual-core or even single-core optimization), the i3 will be much stronger than the 955. Intel's U single-core performance is much stronger than AMD's, but AMD's cost performance is higher, and the 8-core multi-core is stronger than Intel's quad-core.

The CPU of the same architecture in the same era, the larger the L2 and L3 cache, the higher the main frequency, the smoother the game, and the new architecture CPU can consume less power and achieve the game performance of the old architecture at low frequencies (such as Core 2 and Pentium IV).

There's a concept that's wrong, that's what you're talking about, whether it's on AMD's CPU or Intel's CPU, Intel emphasizes single-core computing power, so Intel can use a single core to compute things, AMD needs all cores together to achieve the same effect (that's why high-end Intel kills AMD), but Intel's high-end CPU has something called intelligent downclocking, and when you use a core alone, other cores will only work with downclocking Let's put the excess energy on the cores you're using, and AMD has a CPU that naturally the more cores, the better, and as an aside, playing games now is all about CPU surplus, which means that the CPU is not the bottleneck that restricts the game now, it's more on the graphics card and the hard disk.

Eating chicken is a game that particularly eats the CPU frequency and memory energy efficiency, so the higher the frequency of the CPU frequency and turbo frequency, the smoother the chicken.

In terms of FPS fluctuations in the game, the performance of the high frequency return car manager is better than that of the low frequency, but the amplitude is not as obvious as the main frequency does not rise.

It is true that the faster the CPU, the faster you type, but this "acceleration" is difficult for you to experience.

Under the same architecture, of course, the higher the frequency, the better. However, I even think that HD4850 with E7200 or E7300 is OK, anyway, E7200 overclocking performance is very good, I don't think it's enough, if you match the graphics card, HD4870 or GTX260 can be considered.