The computer is only used for online office audio, is the processor multi core or single core?

If the computer is only used for online office, it is recommended that it is more cost-effective to have a single box, which is more economical, and the cost of multi-core processors is higher and the configuration is higher.

According to your description, if it is only used for online office audio, the processor single core is sufficient, but the dual core is relatively faster, so we can choose the dual core, which is better.

It is better to drink or single-core audio and video processors that are only used for online office. Of course, it's a good multi-core, although it's monotonous only for the office, but with the continuous advancement of electronic products, there are more functions that need it.

If the computer is only used for online office, the single-core one is enough and the cost performance is relatively high, but in general, the multi-core processor is better at running speed and running ability.

In case of inquiry, if you follow this usage, you can generally use a single core.

It is better to buy a multi-core processor because it is capable of running multiple software at the same time and will not get stuck when you use it.

It must be dual-core good.,Even if you're working,,You also need a computer to send a faster processing speed.,Of course, the higher the configuration, the better.。

Multi-core, minimum of more than four cores.

Reason: At present, there are almost no single-core CPUs, the times are different, single-core is eliminated, and you don't need anything, a single pure system win10 requires at least two cores to run!

Comparatively speaking, multi-core is definitely better, because multi-core is a little faster.

Hello! This problem does not need to be considered, because now it is basically impossible to buy a single-core processor, if you don't understand the hardware, it is best not to choose the assembly machine, directly buy a business host, which is the most suitable for the office, because the business machine hardware has undergone strict compatibility testing, and the operation is relatively stable, in addition, the brand machine generally provides a three-year warranty, and if there is a problem, you can repair it for free, which is very worry-free.

Hello, in this case, I think it would be better to choose multi-core.

The effect will be better this way.

If it is only for office use, I personally feel that a single box is enough to meet the needs.

It's not a big deal, generally speaking, most of the singular numbers are new, and most of them perform better.

For today's computers, you have to use a multi-core processor for whatever you do? Otherwise, it would seem difficult to have a single operating system.

It is still good for us to use it only for the Internet, because after all, the value ratio is higher.

In the scenic area, I have everything in my office and on the computer, only what you can't think of, nothing he can't do.

The computer is forbidden to be used for online office audio-visual processor multi-core or single-core is better, that must be multi-core good, no matter what kind of office computer is still multi-core good.

If the brain is only suitable for online office, because of the audio and video processor, I think, multi-core is better than single-core.

The computer is only used for online office, and Li Xiang has many processors, but it can also be single-core, all according to their own configuration.

Computers are only used for online work, and I don't think there is a need for multi-core processors.

If it is a comparison between a single-core CPU and a dual-core CPU of the same generation, as long as the main frequency of the dual-core is not too low, the performance of the dual-core must be stronger than that of the single-core, especially the actual experience of running the operating system and commonly used software.

For example, in the early years, the single-core Celeron E430 series, even if the main frequency is over, the experience is not as good as the dual-core Celeron E1500 dual-core with a frequency of less than 2GHz.

In the same way, processors with little difference in architecture in recent years, the smoothness of the quad-core with a slightly lower frequency is definitely stronger than that of the dual-core with a higher frequency. For example, although the main frequency of the Dragon II X4 955 is not as high as that of the Athlon II X2 280, the experience must be much better.

In other words, today, multi-core is becoming more and more important, even if the single-core performance is weaker, try to use multi-core U, and the experience will be better. Like you said, there are more and more background processes and they don't get stuck.

Finally, single-core performance and multi-core performance should not be biased, and should be considered comprehensively.

When dealing with a single task, the single-core performance is dominant;

When it comes to multitasking, multi-core is dominant.

Number of cores: In general, the more cores, the better;

Main frequency: In general, the higher the main frequency, the better;

Turbo frequency, when the computer processes less data, the CPU frequency will automatically decrease, when processing a lot of data, the CPU frequency will automatically rise, Core i5 and i7 support the turbo frequency function, and some AMD processors also support the turbo frequency function;

Production process: The production process greatly affects the CPU performance, and the advanced production process is still stronger than the old process even if the number of cores and the main frequency are lower than the old production process, such as the Pentium "Core Bus Interface Type:

Different interface types, different data exchange and transmission speeds, and different CPU computing capabilities;

Number of caches: The more cache levels, the better.

Office, gaming, audio-visual, single core is important. The main thing is to open a single to 4 programs are single-core strong. These software games are optimized for a single core, up to 4 cores, and you can't use more than that.

Design, rendering, influencers. For those who are highly dependent on computers for work, multi-core is required. In particular, Internet celebrities need to open several more platforms, load various effects, sound cards, cameras, and beautification, all of which work dozens of software at the same time, and must have multiple cores to be competent.

The design software is optimized to the maximum core work of the cup, which can maximize the mobilization of the core to process large data, and the lack of cores will affect the work efficiency.

There is no absolute demarcation between multi-core and single-core, and it mainly depends on the scene. Multi-core CPUs are sometimes no better than hundreds of dual-core CPUs for gaming.

It is recommended to be multi-core, and the daily software optimization will be in place in the future, and the multi-core will definitely be good, and you won't worry about the performance being insufficient in the future!

It can only be said that each has its own strengths, when dealing with a single task, the single-core performance is strong, and when dealing with multi-tasking, the multi-core is dominant, just like people, no matter how fast you move, you can't have more advantages than more people.

Multi-core and single-core performance are equally important. And the two concepts are different, and it is not easy to compare.

The key depends on the level of support of the system and programs, for example, I used the previous Core 2 e8400 to play Warcraft with no worse effect than the i3 3240. Because the old Warcraft games in the past were not optimized or supported for multi-core.

It depends on what you're doing with the computer.,If you're just playing games, then it's important to run a single-core score.,If you open more programs.,Multi-tasking,And basically don't play games, then multi-core score,At this time, the main frequency is second.。

Composite indices are important.

Our application of the computer is a comprehensive application, therefore, we cannot look at the good performance of a certain core, or the sum of all the core performance is very good, it is a good processor, but depends on the comprehensive application of daily applications, as well as the energy consumption under the same performance and other factors.

In fact, i3 or i5, although it is more expensive, but in view of the low power consumption [look at AMD's six cores and eight cores], it is competent enough in daily applications, and it is your own to save electricity bills, and low heat generation can also extend the life of components such as the motherboard. So I've been using the i-series myself instead of AMD multi-core.

It depends on what you use: people who play games pursue the ultimate frame rate, and they all use Intel, multi-open rendering, and graphics to pursue cost-effective AMD

In most cases, AMD's single-core performance is not as good as Intel's, but last year and this year, AMD's Ryzen series processors are very strong, and the gap with Intel is very small. AMD claimed to sell the first generation of Ryzen at half price last year, but the price of the second generation has increased this year, and they are all profiteers! At the same price, AMD is still stronger!

This problem needs to be quantified, for example, there are two CPUs, and the A CPU is dual-core, and the performance of each core is 1The B CPU is quad-core, and the performance of each core is. In the current state of software optimization, it can be said that A is better than B.

Because the current software optimization does not make full use of all four cores. Therefore, it can be considered that the same theoretical computing power with few cores and high performance is better than multi-core and low performance.

Of course, the more cores, the stronger, but you are a high school student and two elementary school students who say who wins, since the landlord knows that it is not about the strength or weakness, then why bother to investigate it to the end. Aside from the cores, the higher the frequency, the better.

You have to look at what you're used for.

Programming and drawing are multi-threaded, and you need to have a good graphics card.

It's all important, but the most important thing is not to look at the system and program (i.e., the purpose)?

The main task is to look at the running task, some programs use a single core to run faster, and some programs use a multi-core running speed better. In the past, Intel engaged in multi-threading, AMD suffered a loss of n years, and now it also learns multi-threading, and Intel's latest i7 9700K is to give up multi-threading is enough to prove the importance of single-core performance, now dozens of processes on the computer you see, there are a few processes that eat CPU, many processes are just no-load, negligible in terms of performance, now many programs are required for single-core performance, especially when you run some programs are often CPU full load, For example, if you copy a file, how can there be such a thing as load sharing for the most primitive and basic copy file?

Depending on what you use, some require single-core performance such as most games, some require multi-core performance, such as multitasking, on-hook or something, and some applications.

However, the current AMD Ryzen series, the single-core performance is already very good, and the cost performance is very high, especially in the case of Intel** inflated a lot, AMD is a good choice.

How to choose depends on the individual, and now most software has developed the use of multiple cores, so it is best for personal use to have more than four cores. The specific number of cores to buy depends on what is usually used the most.

Single-core pursuit of the ultimate, multi-core pursuit...

A lot of people run together but very slowly, and one person runs like Usain Bolt.

Multi-core performance is the trend of the future, because everyone runs more and more things, but the performance of multi-core can not be fully displayed, and now the software still pays more attention to the optimization of single-core, although now multi-core optimization has caught up, the general game is to eat single-core, multi-core can not be fully useful, and now the software does not have high requirements for hardware, AMD second-generation thread rippers can also see that multi-core performance in addition to rendering and the like requires multi-core performance or multi-core operation at the same time, in order to fully play. Multi-core performance is best seen in rendering. At present, single-core performance is still relatively important, but in the future, multi-core performance will definitely be fully exerted in the future.

Single-core performance is more important than multi-core. Talking about the percentage of occupation is a software idea, not a hardware idea, the hardware level is about the occupation time, the process will not be okay to occupy the CPU, most of the time the process is actually in an idle state, the single-core performance is weak, the CPU processing takes longer, consumes more time, more power, more computing resources, more such inefficient cores are piled together, and the efficiency will not necessarily be doubled, because the software system is preset with the allocation rules, such as XP only considers how to allocate the dual cores back then, After patching, you know how to command 4 cores, you 6 cores? I won't use it.,The result is still equal to 4 cores.,This is especially obvious in games.,It's a dual-core game like lol.,You have 10 cores and 2 work.,The rest is a spectator.。

Compare nuclear to an engine. Multi-core means having multiple units. Single-core means having only one engine.

Multiple cores can work together. A single game can also be used with multiple cores. The current program of the game is quite good for multi-core support.

But CPUs aren't simply better than a few cores. Some CPUs with more cores are not as powerful as CPUs with fewer cores due to poor single-core performance. Especially AMDCPU.

If the landlord mainly plays emulator games, it is recommended to consider the Intel i5 processor with good cost performance, such as i5 8400, and if the budget is average, it is recommended to consider i3 8100, AMD processor is worse in terms of emulators.

There is an absolute advantage in office and multi-core, and the requirements for the main frequency of single-core performance are not high.

The office often has to open more web pages to definitely want, and then hang some software; Multithreading can take a lot of the pressure off;

Office or consider multi-core, you can consider the tenth generation i3 single-core performance is not weak, or 4 cores and 8 threads.

As far as the processor is concerned, the game is still competing for single-core combat capabilities, not necessarily the more cores, the better the game performance, but also consider the manufacturing process, turbo frequency technology, multi-threading technology, etc., now the mainstream is dual-core, and the current game is mainly optimized for dual-core, so there can be not many cores to play the game processor, but the performance of a single core is stronger.

With the same computing power, a single core is good (now that multi-core is developing, it means that a single core is stronger to do, and it is more difficult than a multi-core.) ）

It is right to develop multi-core in terms of cost and technical difficulty.