Search the Community

Hello everyone.. Sorry for my bad english.. I bought surface pro 4 yesterday.. it has i5 6300u which i confirmed has 2 cores and 4 threads.. but for some reason task manager and cpu-z is showing 2 core and 2 threads.. i checked the bios but there isn't an option for hyperthreading in that.. and also i checked msconfig everything is fine there too... I am a bit confused now.. why it is showing 2 threads instead of 4.. can anyone help me with that?

Can I switch from 4 cores 8 threads to 3 core's 6 threads freely? Or any other threads? For temperature and battery conservation.

As the title suggest, can someone give me an example of single threaded workloads or application that use that? Because afaik, almost all modern workloads are multi-threaded to some extent.

It may come as a shock to some that just over 15 years ago CPUs only had a single core, and running 2 threads on one core simultaneously was just an infant of an idea. Nowadays dual-core chips are practically ubiquitous as the minimum across the civilized world. Even so, to this day most consumer software runs using a single thread and only the oldest of instruction sets for a target platform. There are reasons for this, such as making software which can be sold to the most people with a reliable minimum performance metric which is very concrete and easy to calculate. Whether or not these are good reasons you can argue back and forth very easily, though I think it's safe to tell the board of sales to shove it in a post-SandyBridge era. With Windows 10 very likely to finally shove Windows XP and Windows 7 users from their moorings, and with the new OS requiring the presence of newer instruction sets, we can finally guarantee a much better minimum performance based purely on instruction-level parallelism gained through compiler optimization of code and the Out-Of-Order Processing (OOOP) unit in x86 CPUs made by Intel and AMD. This, however, is limited by the skill of coders to write code in such a manner as to be implicitly parallel. That is, code which can be very rapidly analyzed in small sections and be obviously concurrent to a compiler or CPU OOOP engine with little to no dependence on immediately previous code. In the microarchitecture world this is superscalar pipelining where instructions are ordered in such a manner as to execute in a shingled manner, where fetching of one instruction can happen while another is being decoded, another executed, and the result of another is being written back. There are all manner of data and control hazards in most code which are not obvious to the naked eye, even to seasoned programmers who haven't taken a course or read material on the subject of High Performance Computing (HPC), not to be confused with Scientific Computing, Parallel Computing, and especially Heterogeneous Computing, though these sectors of the computer science world actively use HPC concepts to squeeze out every last drop of performance from the hardware of a given system while increasing power efficiency. High Performance Computing is about maximizing the performance of a single computing resource through code restructuring. This is by no means an easy task in any code base intricate enough to be used in production systems. So what is easy by comparison? Frankly, it's thread-level parallelism. Not every task is internally concurrent and thus not every task is appropriate for multithreading, and even for those which are, the overhead of launching and killing threads may entirely eclipse perceived gains for small instances of a given problem. There are primarily two forms of parallelism focused on in modern computing paradigms: data-level parallelism and task-level parallelism. Data-level parallelism is practically self-explanatory. Any task which can concurrently search or transform a set of data is a good candidate for data-parallel optimization. This can come in the forms of multiple threads working on different portions of the data set simultaneously, SIMD instructions iterating over the data set in chunks in a single thread, or (in the most optimal performance case) a combination of the two. Generally this is the easiest parallel code to build for programmers. Task-level parallelism is probably the most obvious, even if not the easiest, form of parallelism to implement. If two tasks can run concurrently and are both required to complete before a third task can begin, these first two tasks are prime candidates for task-parallel optimization. In simplest terms, throw each task into its own thread forked thread, let them execute, receive back the results, kill the spawned threads, and move on to task 3. You would think this isn't difficult at all to figure out, and frankly I would agree with such a position, but there are instances where tasks 1 and 2 are touching the same resource. If either one is modifying it while the other is analyzing or trying to modify it in a different way, such a situation can produce unpredictable behavior in results. This is an instance of a "race condition." This is where parallelism gets tricky, but the truth is if one is careful, race conditions can be avoided for most things one can implement task-level parallel code for. If I want to save the temporary state of a file to disk, I can certainly do that while the data is being manipulated. It's a temp state, and temporal locality (how close in time) is "close enough" that a loss of power or system error would cause only a tiny loss of data. Therefore, why should I lock the user from being able to modify the file while it's being saved? If it's a large file, this is highly inconvenient. Solution: separate editing and saving into two threads, aka very simple task-level parallelism. In future entries I intend to show task-level parallelism is easy to implement thanks to standards and tools developed and maintained by various non-profits which can be ubiquitously applied to any architecture developed by the major and intermediate players of the microprocessor industry. As a consequence, I will support the idea code should be developed as parallel wherever possible and the era of excuses not to is over.

Im struggling to decide on what my next cpu should be for gaming. The next gen of consoles is right around the corner and with that means more demanding games with it. Is it worth getting one of the new intel 10th gens for the extra threads and should i go for an 8 core or will 6 likely still be enough for a good while? thanks

So.. I've been looking forward to buying a new computer and im confused on processor i should get? (not getting amd) I have an option of: a) i5 7600k - 4 CORES/ THREADS + 4.2 GHz (Can overclock up to 5.0 GHz) b) i7 7700 - 4 CORES/ 8 THREADS + 4.2 GHz c) i7 7700k - 4 CORES/ 8 THREADS + 4.5 GHz (Can overclock up to 5.0 GHz) Now, I am an inspired content creator means that i would want to be editing, Which one should i choose? Why? Price of processors are listed from top to bottom (top cheapest) Ps: If there is any kind soul out there that is willing to tell what are threads and GHz. Also which to choose over, for example: GHz over Cores and Threads or Cores and Threads over GHz. that would be fantastically amazing! Edit: I did watch and read about CPUs and never understood anything.

Just curious, is there any actual reason why a 4C/8T chip, for example, should be more expensive than a 4C/4T chip of the same clock speed, architecture and all that? Do they cost more to produce, or even produce any more heat? Or is one thread per core, like locked multipliers, just an arbitrary limitation?

SO, I have a measly AMD a10 6800k (it needs to go, f a s t). I already own a z170 board, it was on sale for 49.99 so I just grabbed it. Anyway, i5 6600k and overclock OR i7 6700? I can upgrade the 6700 to a 7700k in the future, when the 6700 shows its age. This cpu must last me about 4-5 years. I personally think the i7 is a good choice as it has hyper threading and that will help in newer games that use more than 4 cores (BF1 for example). Please share your thoughts, thanks

Hi Is there a way to limit the number of threads a program can use? For instance I would like to run a mallware-scan and use my computer for other things in the mean time. But the scan is using 100% of every threads making it hard to work or watch a stream. Can I limit it to using fewer threads, so I can still use my computer while running heavy programs in the background?

Hey guys, i from bolivia. i text you for help with my render time in Adobe AE. Let me tell you whats happen......im working for a bank, ande they send us a lot of photos to make a video for them, soo, we buy a composition in AF, (that is we usually do) with a lot of layers and effects. soo everything is fine, but when time to render is coming, for a 3 min render its take like 5 hours!! . thats too much for us: Hardware we have its this: Ryzen 7 1700 OC at 3.5 Ghz 16 GB DDR4 RAM LPX 3200mhz 120 GB SSD 1.5 tb HDD GTX 1060 6GB All proyect is on this PC, CUDA aceleration is on in every Adobe program we have. My CPU usage its about 20%, How can i Improve it to reach high? Soo the question is: Can u help me to reduce my render time

I've read a lot that the recent trend of newer games being able to use 6 cores has been due to the PS4 and XB1 having 8 cores and 6 cores available to games. Intel is apparently going to add 2 more cores to their Coffee Lake CPUs. PS5 and XB whatever may also have more cores(or at least more cores available for games) which may make games better at scaling through more cores. PCWorld's DX12 test using 3DMark's API Overhead Feature Test 1.2 showed that DX12 peaks at 6c/6t but Mafia 3 and Ashes of the Singularity tests done by Hardware Unboxed showed that they give higher framerates with a R7 1700 compared to R5 1600, both at 4ghz. What do you think?

The scariest part of this article? "32 core, 64 thread" But... Can it run Crisis?

Is there any way to fake at least threads or create virtual ones? Same for cpu cores

I run a small pc build/maintenance corner in my uncle's hardware store. Over 7 months since I've opened up I've noticed more gaming builds request of either the ryzen 7 or the 9700K for their 8 cores and 16 threads. I know that usually the standard 6 cores is more then enough for gaming but more games are starting to utilize more threads or core such as (shadow of Tomb raider), I'm starting to think that we're back to the 2/4/4-8 setting again just as games start to utilize more of the threads. So I'm actually not surprised at the rumors about ryzen 3000 being 6/8/12 cores. Just as game is changing I'm sure even the light workstations will benefit from the extra cores/threads. I just hope the rumors are true so AMD can kick Intel in the nuts with Ryzen. I used to find 8 cores overkill for gaming, but now it's normal since I play "Assassin's creed", even my workload has been much easier for me since I've switched out the R5 for the R7 2700 on my workhorse pc. I m starting to belive the 6 core/12 threads may be the next 2 cores/4 threads or 4 cores/ 8 threads.

So this is my first real deep dive into a topic like this. If you find any errors or have any questions about what I put down, don't hesitate to ask or tell me. . . So this essay was actually inspired by a session of gaming where I was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider where I noticed that the game was using all of my six cores and twelve threads on my Ryzen 5 1600. Closely inspecting the cpu usage graph for each core revealed that all of the cores seemed to have the same usage pattern which gave me pause as to whether or not the game was actually using all of the cores for a useful load or if it was just replicating data to be worked on across multiple cores at the same time. I did not notice this behavior in dx11 mode though my overall performance was lower in DX11 overall. I decided to further investigate this by seeing if I could disable threads and cores to find out at which point the frame rates would actually start suffering from the reduced thread count which should indicate how many threads Rise of the Tomb raider was actually using. My methods for testing were using Rise of the Tomb Raider’s built in benchmark in repetition at the medium preset with textures turned up to high, anisotropic filtering set to 16x, dof turned off, motion blur and vignette blur turned off, tessellation set to on, and smaa as my anti aliasing. DX12 was enabled as well as exclusive fullscreen with a resolution of 3440x1440. In order to test the core and thread differences, I would disable the amount of cores or disable smt in the bios of my Gigabyte ab350n motherboard prior to testing and then boot into Windows 10. I would allow all system processes to die down and then launch ROTTR. I used msi afterburner, HWINFO64, and windows task manager to monitor cpu and gpu usage along with temperatures and power draw. I would run an initial “sacrificial” run of the benchmark to allow the system to load whatever it needed to into ram to reduce stutter and random cpu usage which would be otherwise unrepresentative of the overall expected performance. I would then run the benchmark six more times sequentially recording the average, minimum, and maximum frame rates for each part of the test. At the end of the run I would take a screenshot of all aforementioned monitoring software for further analysis. The system in question is comprised of an AMD Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked to 3.8Ghz using 1.325 Vcore, 16Gb Team Group Delta rgb ddr4 running at 2666Mhz cl 15, an EVGA GTX 1070 ti sc black edition with a sustained boost frequency of between 2050-2025Mhz, all on a Gigabyte ab350n wifi mini itx board and with all components custom liquid cooled on a 240mm loop with all fans at 100% pwm to ensure temperature was not a variable in regards to performance. Starting with the baseline of six cores and twelve threads, we can see the average is 78.45 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.71fps. This is a good result and if we look at the cpu and gpu usage graphs we can see that the cpu has a general downward trend in terms of overall usage and the gpu has no dips in usage which is what we are looking for. Now, simulating a 4 core cpu with smt to 8 threads such as a 1400 or 1500x, we can see that the average is 79.2fps with the minimums dipping down to 37.72. The difference between these two averages are not statistically significantly different if using a standard value of 0.05 for a standard 2 sample T test and anecdotally that seems true. The minimums however are in clear favor of the 6 core 12 threaded cpu. Looking more closely we can see that the maximums for the 4 core 8 thread cpu are noticeably ahead of those of the 6 core 12 threaded one. The minimums of the 4 core smt cpu are overall lower with a narrower spread than that of the 6 core smt cpu. The minimums of the latter processor were significantly better than those of the former. Looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows us that there are a few more noticeable dips in gpu usage and overall cpu usage is higher though overall they both look good and would both make for a good experience. Now looking at a six core cpu with smt disabled so 6 cores and 6 threads, the average comes to 79.24 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.96. In this case lower thread configuration is measurably higher than that of the higher thread count cpu in terms of average fps. However when looking into minimums we can see that they are not significantly different and so are effectively the same. Overall the experience between these two were very similar and looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs reveals that while the cpu usage was overall higher, there appear to be a couple of times where the cpu spiked less though the gpu usage remained about as flat as the 6 core 12 thread cpu and gameplay remained similar between all three of the aforementioned cpus with a couple very slight frame skips with the smt enabled four core. Moving on to an uncommon cpu core and thread setup, I decided to test a 3 core and six thread configuration to see how smt thread performance would compare to real core usage. The average fps is 77.39 fps and the minimums are 39.95. This puts the average fps measurably worse than both the six core twelve thread configuration and the six core six thread configuration though only by about two fps at best. In terms of minimums, the three core six thread configuration is not quite statistically significantly different than the six core twelve thread configuration, though it would likely become different if sample size was increased, but is measurably worse than that of the six core six thread configuration which gives credence to the theory of an increased sample size. In gameplay there were again minor frame skips which is backed up by looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs which show that the cpu usage was high and that there were longer dips in gpu usage than in any of the previous configurations. Moving down to four cores and four threads effectively emulating something like a Ryzen 3 1200 or 1300x, we get an average fps of 76.32 and a minimum fps of 40.17. Comparing this to the original six core and twelve thread we can see that the average fps is measurably worse though the about two fps difference is not noticeable in gameplay. Minimums end up not being significantly worse since the sample size is low. Comparing to the four core eight thread configuration the four core without smt configuration comes in at about three measurable fps less with minimums that are effectively the same. In this case disabling smt ends up netting worse performance contradicting the six core configurations results. The last comparison to this configuration I thought was sensical was that of the three core six thread configuration since smt threads rarely equal real cores in workloads that are not highly parallelizable. In comparing these two there is a measurable drop in fps by about one frame per second which is measurable but is not perceptible in game. The minimums are once again effectively identical between the two configurations. Looking into the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows that there are longer periods high cpu usage in comparison to all other configurations with longer but even dips in gpu usage with the gpu usage dips being slightly deeper than those of the three core six threat configuration. Our last configuration is once again an odd configuration of three cores without smt for three total threads. While it is impossible to buy a modern cpu with this configuration it is useful for thread and core comparison. Also two cores and four threads was not stable with my overclock for some reason and by this time Rise of the Tomb Raider wanted me to wait 24 hours for it to revalidate that I had actually bought the game so I decided to cut it off at the three cores since you should probably not be buying a cpu with less than four in today’s market anyways. Moving onto the data, average fps come in at 75.21 which seems surprisingly high for such a low core configuration though not entirely surprising considering dx12’s claim to fame has always been better usage of weaker cpus. The minimums dip down to a pretty low 30.63 fps which begins to show how this cpu configuration is performing. This configuration is measurable and noticeably worse than all of the other configurations in both minimum and average fps. While the average fps seems to be pretty high, a quick look into cpu and gpu usage shows extremely high cpu usage with pretty much constant gpu usage variation with larger and longer dips than the previous configurations. I also observed during the runs that foliage would suddenly pop into existence while moving along in the run with other objects failing to load in at their proper times as well. Overall reviewing this data gives us a look into how Rise of the Tomb Raider utilizes threads in dx12 mode. Running this game in 1080p rather than ultrawide 1440p would have better accentuated thread differences but I chose to instead use a resolution that I think is somewhere near if slightly above the sweet spot for gaming right now. There are still some differences even if they are lower they do give insight as to how each thread of a system is handled in this game. Of note is that I would have liked to test a two core four thread configuration to match up older i3 cpus, it was unstable at my overclock of 3.8 Ghz but would run at 3.7ghz at stock settings. I did not want to redo all of my testing at 3.7Ghz so I decided that I would use a three core three thread configuration as a placeholder. Perhaps in the future I can take a deeper look into how a dual core with smt would fare in this game as well as others in comparison to the other configurations I have here. Overall it seems that this game prefers cores to threads though additional thread can make up for lacking cores. Smt does not have a purely negative impact on gaming as it did when ryzen was first launched and while it is usually behind in terms of minimum frame rates the difference is small enough to where I would say that there is no point in disabling smt in Rise of the Tomb Raider. In practice anything over 4 cores seems to be plenty to run this game at respectable frame rates and resolutions and in my testing scaling stops after 6 total threads. With that said I cannot dismiss that an eight core cpu might be a better performer though my data indicates that the cpu is already being used at a low enough amount that the additional threads should have no effect but to lower overall per thread usage. In the future I may add data should I get my hands on a higher core count cpu and it shows some significant difference in performance over this six core part. . . Here is a link to the Google sheets document containing all of my data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17NCvNtm4q08kRsa4j7uPNO0zQ_aS9oEwidojbPtGu-Y/edit?usp=sharing Here are the graphs from my data: and here are the screenshots of the cpu and gpu usage during the runs:

Hi peeps, I'm currently running a 6700k and I'm looking at my next upgrade (and handing my current machine down to my son for gaming). My needs however are not quite typical. I tend to play games that support multi-boxing (running multiple copies of the client at the same time) and I'm also getting further and further into AI and Machine Learning (currently studying my MSc planning to go for a PHD). I run Manjaro Linux if that makes any difference and will be looking at nvidia GPUs (for the ML work) - currently have a 1060 6Gb but will upgrade that also and look at multiple cards if it helps my research. Gaming wise the games I play aren't GPU intensive and I'm looking at supporting more clients rather than upping the graphics settings. Currently I can run 6 clients (at 1080p windowed on a 4k monitor) with the cpu maxing out - I'd love to be able to up those rookie numbers! So all that taken into account, what should I be focusing on for CPU/chipset features? I'm assuming more cores/threads. What would be the pros and cons on going from Ryzen to Threadripper to Epyc and should I be considering Xeons instead? I'm open to using server components too, obviously the step from a 6700k to threadripper is a big price step up and I'm a poor student - but looking for the best bang for buck (or pound, I'm from the UK!) Not in a hurry to upgrade but probably some point this year rather than later - any advice hugely appreciated!

I'm building a entry level gaming pc. My budget is quite tight so I can't afford 3600. I've chosen 1650 super as my GPU can't go higher than this. Also i'll take an entry level b450 motherboard (GIGABYTE AMD B450M DS3H ULTRA DURABLE RGB MOTHERBOARD) and 16 gb RAM. BUT i'm in doubt in CPU, should I take Ryzen 5 2600 or 3500?? What kind of performance gap will I get in this combination? IF 3500 is better, then does it worth the extra 30$ (in local market) or should i spend that money on a better motherboard?

hey guyz so i bought a dell precision t3500 it has xeon w3565 which has 4 cores and 8 threads.. but i m having some issues my task manager shows only 4 threads even when i m running a cinebench it also shows 4 cores 4 threads i installed the old version of windows but now it is downloading updates,, is it really happening due to windows update or what should i do to enable all threads? EDIT: cpu-z is also showing 4 cores and 4 threads

Hi, I built some time ago a computer with a Ryzen 2400g. I just noticed that it doesn't show all the cpu threads. No matter where you look the info it always says 4 cores 4 threads. My build is a very simple one: - Ryzen 2400g - 2x Corsair Vengance 8GB 2400 DDR4 - Gigabyte A320m s2h - WD blue 250GB SSD The absence of the extra 4 threads is easily visible when comparing my results of Cinebench r20 with other people online. you can find all the pertinent images attached. If anyone knows why is this happening please let me know

Hiya there, I'm Joey (new member) so I'm looking at the Lenovo Ideapad 5 and there's an option for an R5 4600U which has 6 cores and 12 threads or I can get or an R7 4700U with 8 cores and 8 threads . I'm mainly using for video editing (Premiere Pro & After Effects) and I'm unsure whether 8 cores with only 8 threads would benefit me more than having 6 cores but with 12 threads. Would really appreciate your help - Thanks Guys

I have an AMD A10-5700, why does the CPU Temp register it to have 4 cores, but task manager says it has 2 cores? What's the difference between their definition of a core and why?

I just recently bought a core i3 3240 for my dell optiplex 7010 sff. But in task manager it is showing up only as 2 cores and 2 threads can anyone help me out? Must mention though I think I have bent some pins on the socket but managed to bend them back as the system still does boot just with missing threads. But when comparing cinebench r15 scores I got 205 which is on par with others. Is there a system bug not showing the additional cores or have I actually broken something. Someone please help

Hello guys so i want to upgrade my current i3 6098p to one of those 2 i5 8400 or i7 7700.(Gaming-Multitasking and by multitasking i mean the Game with 2-3 tabs opened on Opera. Is it worth buying an 7th gen cpu right now or i should better buy the i5 with a new mobo?What do you guys think. Btw i want to upgrade my Psu(corsair vs550)to a corsair rmx 550 and also my case(Aerocool battlehawk) to a NZXT s340 elite.My gpu is gtx 1060 3gb So guys what do you think.If i get these parts will i be able to run most of the games on high at least medium?(1080p) Thank you ]\

asus z10pe-d8 ws motheboard, What lga 2011-v3 xeon has the highest core count?

I have heard that threads are simply "virtual cores" and they are better to have than to not have. I want to know what exactly they do as some CPUs have different amounts of them.