I greet you, dear colleagues and guests of the club of experts. Today we will talk about desktop processors. Unlike the booming market for ARM processors for mobile and media solutions, the x86 processor market is no longer developing as dynamically as it was a few years ago, there have not been any significant breakthroughs since the advent of the Sandy Bridge family, and the development of desktop processors, at this stage , first of all, is to reduce the area of \u200b\u200bthe crystal (technological process), reduce heat generation, reduce power consumption, improve integrated graphics and update instructions.
The technology for the production of central processors has changed significantly, but this has not greatly affected performance. For example, Sandy Bridge processors, whose release began back in 2009, are still more relevant (especially their older segments). Intel, which has been a leader in the desktop processor market for a long time, is no longer trying hard to raise the performance bar that it set everything in the same 2009, and in response to AMD solutions, with an emphasis on integrated graphics, it began to do the same aspect specifically on her. Such developments are undoubtedly very useful for mobile platforms, where the installation of a discrete card has a detrimental effect on battery life, useful for the budget segment, in which more or less productive integrated graphics can turn their attention to themselves, useful for work solutions, where graphics are just a nice bonus , but is actually useless in the older segment. Intel, which has completely conquered the senior desktop segment, has taken the offensive on the budget front. The first attempt to change something was the Ivi Bridge family: by reducing the crystal area, improving the graphics, Intel stopped playing dry in the market of budget and multimedia PCs. However, Intel's main mistake (in the desktop processor market) was the use of high-performance graphics only in top-end solutions, while budget and mid-range solutions did not get sufficient graphics performance. This error was decided to be corrected by the Huswell family, in which productive solutions are used even in budget series. Even the graphics in the Intel DualCore are somewhat faster than those found in the desktop i3 and i5 of the last generation, so AMD may have to move a little with their APUs. What exactly has been improved in the new solutions from Intel? Can they even compete with AMD's APUs in terms of graphics performance? And what surprises await us from budget decisions? All this we must find out.
To begin with, let's consider 2 new members of the Core i3 family: 4330 and 4130. The i3 4330 solution is remarkable not only for its very high frequency, for its class - 3.5 GHz, being, in fact, the fastest desktop dual-core processor (only i3 4340 is faster - 3.6 GHz), but as well as an increased cache and Intel HD4600 graphics, which is found in older Intel solutions. Yes, you heard right, in the new solutions from Intel, each line has processors with improved graphics (at the same time, the frequency of this graphics is 1150 MHz for all, in previous generations the graphics frequency varied depending on the family).
The i3 4130 processor has a slightly lower frequency, 1 MB less cache and slightly weaker Intel HD 4400 graphics. Both new products have a lower TDP of 54 W, are made using a 22 nm process technology and support Hyper-Threading
Specifications
Intel Core I3 4330
Socket - H3 (LGA 1150)
Lineup – Intel Core i3
Core – Haswell
Manufacturing process - 22 nm
Processor frequency - 3500 MHz
GPU Model - Intel HD Graphics 4600
Stream processors - 20
Number of cores - 2
L1 cache size - 64 KB
L2 cache size - 512 KB
L3 cache size - 4096 KB
SSE4 support - yes
Heat dissipation - 54 W
Intel Core i3 4130
Socket - H3 (LGA 1150)
Lineup – Intel Core i3
Core – Haswell
Manufacturing process - 22 nm
Processor frequency - 3400 MHz
Integrated graphics core - yes
GPU Model - Intel HD Graphics 4400
The maximum frequency of the graphics core is 1150 MHz
Stream processors - 16
Built-in memory controller - yes
Maximum memory bandwidth - 25.6 Gb / s
Number of cores - 2
L1 cache size - 64 KB
L2 cache size - 512 KB
L3 cache size - 3072 KB
Support for Hyper-Threading - yes
SSE4 support - yes
Support for Virtualization Technology - yes
Heat dissipation - 54 W
Packaging and equipment
We got the Core i3 4330 in the BOX package, so we can see the new packaging design for Intel processors. The new packaging does not have a bright accent on the line (unlike Sandy Bridge, where the design of the Pentium Dualcore and Core iX series were very different).
The package includes, as usual, instructions, a branded sticker and a boxed cooler. Let's take a closer look at the last one. It's no secret that each new series of processors takes a step towards lowering TDP, this trend allows manufacturers to save more and more on CO. At the moment, instead of BOX coolers from Delta (which were used to cool the older processors of the Sandy Bridge family) with a copper base, simpler ones from Foxconn (F90T12NS1A7), made entirely of aluminum, are used.
Appearance
Actually, the design of the processor from the side of the heat-distributing cover has not actually changed. But the type of contact surface and the design of the microcircuit have changed.
A cooler that is now used throughout the Haswell family, from the simplest to the most expensive. But lowering the TDP of top processors to 84 W did its job, the cooler is designed for a maximum TDP of 90 W, so for everyday tasks this cooler is enough for any processor.
test bench
To draw a full conclusion, we need to compare the results of our guests with other processors, namely:
Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge and Ivi Bridge (i3 2130 3.4 GHz and i3 3210 3.2 GHz);
Intel Pentium DualCore G2140 3.3 GHz;
Comparison with the budget processors of the previous generation will help us feel the changes in the series. Comparison with AMD A4 will let you know if Intel's budget solutions can compete in terms of graphics capabilities with AMD's budget APUs. The presence of the older AMD A10 processor in the test will allow us not only to set the bar for the runners (the A10 solution has the fastest graphics built into the processor), but will also allow us to show whether 2-core Intel solutions can compete with 4-core AMD solutions.
Test stand:
The choice of motherboards and power supplies was determined only by their availability (what was at hand was used). For tests, the same RAM sticks were used to minimize their impact on the test, especially this will affect graphics tests (we are dealing with integrated graphics). In order to speed up the testing process, as well as reduce the impact on the hard drive synthetics (especially in encoding and archiving tests), we will use an SSD for the test. For the "purity of the experiment", the same boxed cooler for modifications from Intel was used, as well as a boxed cooler from AMD to draw conclusions about heat dissipation.
This is how the test bench looks like, based on Intel Haswell processors.
participants in our testing.
Boxed coolers from Intel and AMD participating in testing.
Characteristics of test participants:
As we can see from the table, AMD A4 attracts with its low price; according to this indicator, it is absolutely out of competition. The quad-core A10 costs in fact the same as the Intel Core i3 4330, further confirming the correctness of adding it to the tests.
Testing and Performance
1. Synthetic tests
In order to be able to draw some kind of parallel, we tried to use memory of the same frequency at 1600 MHz for testing (the exception was processors that did not support this frequency). We also tried to take into account the fact that AMD graphics (especially in the A10 processor) have a much higher theoretical performance, therefore, in tests we would get a result that would be limited by the memory bandwidth. In order to understand how much the bandwidth could affect graphics performance, we decided to use dual-channel memory for our today's guests and for AMD processors (fortunately, the test memory strips were enough for this, the memory switched to the BIOS frequency without problems 1866 and even 2133 MHz, increasing the timing), for graphics tests and games. Please note that all graphics are clickable, it is possible to see the image in original size.
In the popular 3DMark benchmark, our guests showed themselves very well, in absolutely equal conditions catching up and even overtaking not only the A4 5300 processor, but even the A10 6700 processor, the latter managed to regain its leadership only with an increase in memory bandwidth, on processors from Intel memory bandwidth has little effect. Actually, the result was a pleasant surprise, the graphics from Intel became much better, it not only managed to outperform the cheap A4, but also compete with the A10, even in conditions of limited memory bandwidth. As for the difference between HD4400 and HD4600 graphics, the difference between them in this test was about 10%, which, in general, is quite predictable.
In Heaven Benchmark, the advantage of using dual-channel memory with AMD processors is still evident, performance has increased by more than 2 times, moreover, both in the case of the A10 and A4 processors. The increase in bandwidth again did not greatly increase the performance of Haswell processors, they are quite cheerful, regardless of the width of the memory channel.
In the OpenGL Cinebench test. The performance gain from the increase in memory bandwidth for the AMD A4 5300 processor is not so huge, and the gain for the A10 6700 is again more than 100%. Naturally, when using a wide memory bandwidth, the A10 has no competitors, but using single-channel 1600 MHz memory, the i3 4330 processor was able to take the lead.
Having finished with graphics performance, we will smoothly move on to combined and computing performance. In the Cinebench CPU test, the i3 4330 processor turned out to be the absolute leader, the i3 4130 took the second place, as if breaking the row of i3 processors, the A10 6700 “wedged” into the 3rd place, the rest of the i3 processors literally “breathed” in its back. In general, in terms of computing performance, we can say that progress has mostly affected AMD processors, which have been able to reach the level of i3 processors in computing. Changes in the architecture of the new Haswell processors helped them win only about 10-15% compared to their predecessors (this is most noticeable with the i3 4130 and i3 2130 processors, which are completely analogous in frequency, but at the same time the new processor, by about 14% faster, and the i3 4330, which has a frequency of 100 MHz more, is faster than its "brother" by almost 18%). Between Haswell processors, in this test, the performance differs by only 3%, that is, approximately the same.
In the combined PCMark 7 test, AMD processors turned out to be absolute outsiders, losing even to the Pentium G2140. The reason for this is most likely optimization and problems with multithreading of the tester itself, since even the i3 2130, which has prohibitively weak graphics, passed this test more successfully (hence, the bandwidth of 1600 MHz and single-channel mode are not the reason). Representatives of Haswell again took the lead, leaving the closest competitors with a 20% lag.
In the SVPmark 3 benchmark, which is able to evaluate the processor's video encoding capabilities, as well as computing and graphics performance, the A10 processor was able to show its best side. Bypassing the i3 4330 processor in all tests. This tester actually did not notice a difference in the performance of the i3 4330 and i3 4130.
In WinRar, which also does not work very well with a large number of cores, there is not much difference from using HyperThreading or full-fledged cores. If you look at the graph, you can understand that within the generations of Intel Core, the archiver is more sensitive to frequency than to generation. In single-threaded mode, the difference between the A10 and A4 processors has virtually disappeared, and in the same mode, AMD processors turned out to be the weakest among all participants. In multi-threaded mode, the A10 was able to outperform the i3 3210, but it couldn't come close to Haswell's results.
In another well-known archiver 7Zip, the situation is somewhat different. In multi-threaded mode, although the archiver does not see much difference between threads and cores, there is a clear priority towards the processor frequency, so the A10 6700 became the winner in the 7Zip test. In single-threaded mode, the above-mentioned processor could not even overtake the Pentium G2140. Our today's participants were able to take their rightful place, having received excellent results in both multi-threaded and single-threaded modes.
2. Gaming performance
Since there were quite a lot of configurations for tests, we didn’t manage to test a large number of games, however, given that all processors have rather mediocre graphics for games, this drawback is not so significant. So, let's consider 3 games: DoTA 2, Mass Effect 3 and World of Tanks (two games are taken, in which performance excites many and one platformer game to test the capabilities of integrated graphics on one of the Unreal engine games).
AT Dota 2, at medium graphics settings, it is possible to play comfortably on most of the tested processors. It is absolutely impossible to play on the Intel Core i3 2130 processor, with its Intel HD 2000 graphics, and there were also small FPS drops in large battles on the Pentium G2140, i3 3210 and A4 5300 (in single-channel memory mode). AMD A10 6700 turned out to be the absolute leader, in dual-channel mode it simply had no equal, but in single-channel mode, resting on a narrow bus and low frequency, the processor retained its leadership. Our today's guests showed themselves well, in any case, there were no freezes, friezes and FPS subsidence to an unplayable level, by which they undoubtedly surpassed the processors of previous generations. Interestingly, in dual-channel memory mode, even the cheap A4 5300 shows a more than acceptable level of performance in this game.
AT Mass Effect 3, where the settings were lowered in the first place to allow all processors to run this game, the A10 6700 processor turned out to be the leader again. Haswell processors were barely able to compete even with the AMD A4 5300 processor, but they delivered a fairly acceptable level of performance. On the processors of the previous generation, the game showed a rather low or sometimes sagging FPS, which generally makes the game on these processors uncomfortable at Full HD resolution without discrete graphics.
in the popular game World of Tanks, at medium graphics settings, only the A10 6700 processor allowed us to play comfortably, in other configurations there was a drop in FPS in massive battles. Naturally, you can reduce the graphics to the minimum and play comfortably on any of the processors, except, perhaps, the Core i3 2130 (the game refused to start at all), but the choice of settings is not accidental, this is the highest quality picture for our configurations. FPS sag is not very critical, in the case of Haswell processors, so playing at medium settings, with anti-aliasing turned off, on these processors is possible, but sometimes FPS sags, so some may find this unacceptable, while others will not even notice short-term "losses » frames.
3. Load temperature
The processors are not too hot, so all test participants show acceptable heating values, even on Box coolers, of course, the situation can change if they get into a poorly ventilated case, but I think overheating will not happen even in this case. The hottest was the old Core i3 2130. Haswell processors were not colder than their predecessors in the face of Ivi, the coldest among the participants of the "tournament" was the intel Pentium G2140, however, this processor has disabled the HyperThreading function, which undoubtedly increases the "ardor" of the processor .
conclusions
Having tested and compared the new processors from Intel, we saw that the Haswell series turned out to be quite successful in terms of integrated graphics. In terms of integrated graphics, the new Intel processors can not only outperform the junior APUs from AMD in some tests and games, but even compete with the champions in the face of older APUs in some places. The computing side of the processors was also at its best, although not very far removed from previous generations.
Pros:
+ excellent performance; + productive integrated video; + the presence of HyperThreading; + 22 nm process technology; + low heat dissipation; + low power consumption.
Minuses:
- So far, the price of the platform is somewhat overpriced (buying a PC on platforms of previous generations is much cheaper).
As for the choice between the i3 4130 and i3 4330 processors, it all depends on your goals, in general, we found out that the graphics gap between them turned out to be about 10%, and the computing power gap is about 3%, is it worth overpaying for this 600-800 rubles, it's up to you, with the same price and a difference of 100-200 rubles, the choice is obvious, when buying a PC with discrete graphics, the choice is also obvious. When choosing between AMD A10 6700 and Intel Core i3 4330, you need to set the priority, which is more important for you, if your goal is only games, and you do not plan to buy discrete graphics, then the A10 6700 processor is for you, but if discrete graphics are in run or on the computer you'll not only play, the i3 4330 option is much better. Using the new processors as an example, we could see that Intel was able to seriously improve the graphics, making it competitive with AMD, given the fact that the new processors are still somewhat faster in terms of processing power, and also have slightly lower power consumption, but have only slightly weaker graphics, the choice is no longer as obvious as it used to be, and we can safely say that Intel has every chance to win these "budget wars".
Thank you all for your attention, until we meet again, AnSoReN was with you.
P.S. I express my gratitude to the administration of the website of DNS and Technopoint for providing a platform for testing.
Since 2010, Intel's Sandy Bridge platform has been captivating the minds of computer geeks who are ready to invest in increasing the performance of their PCs. Since its announcement, the "sand bridge" has already managed to survive not only a decrease in the cost of components, but also a hardware error in the Intel sixtieth series system logic, which was eliminated in the spring of 2011. Since that time, the 2000-series Intel Core processors have become the most desirable acquisition for building home computers. The architecture of these chips is built on the latest 32 nm process technology and is a proven technology - this makes the processors of the Sandy Bridge series economical, high-performance and "cold". The introduction of new architectural solutions and new data processing instructions has brought the new Intel processors to the undisputed leaders in performance.
The Intel Core i3-2xxx line appeared a little later - as usual, the most expensive processors with the highest performance started, then processors with simplified functionality of the Core i3 line, Pentium G and Celeron G began to appear. If older processors have four processing cores, powerful HD Graphics 3000 graphics core and a large amount of L3 cache, the Core i3 series processors are content with only two cores, a basic HD Graphics 2000 graphics core and a reduced L3 cache.
For office use, this performance is more than enough, but in the case of a home computer that performs both the functions of an inexpensive gaming machine and the functions of a home multimedia station, this may not be enough. And the main claims in this case are made specifically to the graphics subsystem, which is thoroughly curtailed. Two processor cores are quite enough for a home computer that is not burdened with 3D modeling tasks or mathematical calculations, but the graphics component is much more important.
Two fast cores versus four slow ones
Test Methodology
In this case, processor dependence is already noticeable, and the game is “interesting” in physical cores, but it does not disdain additional threads either. But at the level of Core i5, in fact, we again “rest” on the video card.
The only one who seriously “failed” is the Core i5-6400. The suggestion made last time that the L3 frequency is very important for the game seems to have turned out to be correct. Multi-core processors for LGA2011-3 just "saved" the number of running computation threads that the game engine "knows" how to correctly utilize, but in the younger model for LGA1151 it is, in fact, the minimum allowable for it.
An example of a game that still needs a couple of cores without any Hyper-Threading, so the high-frequency Core i3s look their best. Rare today :)
Because it happens. In principle, four high-frequency cores are enough for the application - but of today's subjects, this is the Ryzen 3 1300X. The Ryzen 5 1400 trails it only marginally thanks to SMT. Both Core i5s are already noticeable: four single-threaded cores and low frequency. All Core i3s are even slower. From a practical point of view, however, the performance can be considered sufficient, but... Paired with some processors, a video card based on the GTX 1070 already produces a hundred frames per second, against which 60 fps is really bad. You can get by with a slower discreet. Note that this applies to all subjects.
In this game, the gap from the "best" is not so great, but it also exists. Thus, the times when older Core i3 or younger Core i5 were great for a gaming computer almost regardless of the video card are in the past. So from this point of view, it's time to change something in these families :)
Another case when nearly rested on the video card, but exactly what nearly. That is, already now it is desirable to get a little more from the processors. Which, however, is logical and fits into the old empirical formula of "price ratio 1:2". In the sense that a similar video card we use in retail costs an average of 35 thousand rubles, which means that a processor in a pair with it should be selected at least for 15 thousand (if not modern, then with performance at the modern level for this money). And this, after all, is the level of the older, and not the younger Core i5 or Ryzen 5, not to mention the more budget lines. However, their representatives, generally speaking, provide a good level of performance - but often they themselves limit it.
Total
It is easy to see that regardless of the presence or absence of intercompany competition (which is still not complete anyway), it was necessary to “shake up” the lines of Intel processors that had developed many years ago. Of all the reasons, in principle, one is enough: in their current form there is nowhere to develop them, since it is impossible to significantly increase the frequencies not only for the top Core i7. It is clear that it would be more logical to carry out this process “in one touch”, timing it with the release of the seventh generation of Core and maintaining compatibility within a single socket (at the same time, at least Pentium and Core i3, which have become almost identical, would not look so strange), however, on In practice, everything turned out quite differently. 
- << Core i7 Центральный процессор … Википедия
- << Core 2 >> Central Processing Unit Core 2 Duo Logo Manufacturing ... Wikipedia
Core- may refer to: Contents 1 Science and Academics 2 Computers and Technology 3 Media ... Wikipedia
- << Core i5 >> Central processing unit ... Wikipedia
CORE- ist das englische Wort für Kern und bezeichnet: den hydrophoben Kernbereich eines Proteins, siehe Core (Protein) den Reaktorkern eines Kernkraftwerks den früheren Namen der Band Core22 einen Film: The Core – Der innere Kern die deutsche Kitefirma ... Deutsch Wikipedia
Core- ist das englische Wort für Kern und bezeichnet: den hydrophoben Kernbereich eines Proteins, siehe Core (Protein) eine innere Proteinstruktur bei Viren, siehe Kapsid Core = Fondsmanagementstil im Bond Bereich den Reaktorkern eines Kernkraftwerks… … Deutsch Wikipedia
Core- Core, n. ur, fr. L. cor heart. See (Heart).] 1. The heart or inner part of a thing, as of a column, wall, rope, of a boil, etc.; especially, the central part of fruit, containing the kernels or seeds; as, the core of …
CORE- I noun backbone, bedrock, body, center, consequence, content, cornerstone, corpus, epitome, essence, fundamentals, gist, gravance, heart, main point, meat, nave, nub, nucleus, prime ingredient, principle, quiddity, quintessence , soul, substance,… … Law dictionary
Core-〈n. fifteen; Phys.〉 innerer Teil eines Kernreaktors, in dem die Kernreaktion abläuft * * * Core , das; [s], s (Kernphysik): wichtigster Teil eines Kernreaktors, in dem die… … Universal-Lexikon
Core- Core, v. t. 1. To take out the core or inward parts of; as, to core an apple. He's like a corn upon my great toe. . . he must be cored out. Marston. 2. To shape… The Collaborative International Dictionary of English
Books
- Core and Metro Networks electronic book
- Core and Metro Networks, Alexandros Stavdas. Find out everything you need to know about how current networks will have to evolve to provide for future broadband services In this book, the authors provide an overview of the status,…
Hello everyone So let's talk about such processors as the Intel Core I * series, this is a series of productive processors, so to speak. There is also Celeron, Pentium, they are also not bad, but of course less productive.
In general, now I have a Pentium G3220, and to be honest, I can’t say that this is a slow processor, you can even play games, of course, if the video card does not let you down (and I don’t have one, because I don’t play games). The minus of the Pentium G3220 is that it cannot be overclocked, and I found out this minus after the purchase, in general, it's a pity. But you take note that if you take a processor, it would be better if it could be overclocked ..
So, back to the cores. So cores and threads are the main differences between the Core I * series processors. They also differ in frequency.
Well, let's talk about an example, so to speak in a simple way. Here comes the Pentium and Celeron, there are just two cores. Then, the next step is i3, the same two cores are already there, but there is already Hyper-threading technology, that is, there are threads. It turns out that i3 is two cores or 4 threads, Windows itself sees threads as cores, so such a processor is defined as a quad-core. Next comes i5, there are no more threads, there are just 4 cores and that's it. That is a little more powerful. Well, the latest i7 already comes with 4 cores or 8 threads. That is, this is the maximum filling, so to speak, here the cores are at the maximum and the flows are present.
Here in this picture you can roughly understand in which models how many cores go (HT is Hyper-threading, that is, threads):
In addition to all this, well, that is, cores, threads, there are also differences in some instructions there, well, it does not really affect performance, but nevertheless it is worth considering. But what affects and what else differs is the frequency. The more expensive the model, the higher the frequency. This I mean, so to speak, internal models, that is, i3 can be with a frequency of both 3.2 GHz and 3.8 GHz, of course the latter will be better.
By the way, if you suddenly decide to take a computer on the Intel platform, then I advise you to take socket 1151, this is the best choice. No, well, of course you can take 2011-3, but it is too expensive and there is so much power that it is unlikely that so much is needed. The fact is that if I'm not mistaken, then 2011-3 only supports i7 processors, well, that is, the most powerful
In laptops, everything is a little different, there are mobile processors, where there are fewer cores. This is done so that the processor consumes less energy and there is even an i7, you can even say that it is cut down, because there are only 2 cores / 4 threads, these are the guys. But there is i7 where all 4 cores go, but they are still less productive than desktop versions.
But what to do, how to find out how many cores and threads you have? In general, let's first summarize a little. If you have i3, then most likely you have 2 cores / 4 threads. If you have i5, then most likely you have 4 cores. If you have i7, then most likely you have 4 cores / 8 threads. It would be so if you take desktop processors (not laptops) of the Intel Core I * series in a compartment and the most popular models will have exactly that many threads and cores.
I also advise you to do this, download and install the CPU-Z program. It happens that it does not need to be installed at all, but immediately run and that's it. This is a super program, it is small, but it shows all the necessary information about the processor, how many threads, cores, frequency, supported instructions, cache size, and more. In general, all that is needed, she shows all this, I advise in one word
As I already wrote, here I have a Pentium G3220, of course there are no threads (otherwise it would be i3), but I launched the CPU-Z program and this is what information it showed me:
You see, there are Cores and Threads down there, well, these are cores and threads. I strongly advise you to install CPU-Z for yourself, because it doesn’t ask to eat at all, the computer doesn’t load at all, it almost doesn’t take up space, but at the same time, if necessary, it will show all the current information about the process
Something I didn’t write at all about how many more cores / threads you can see in the Windows 10 Manager. So if you have such a modern Windows, then look, to do this, right-click on the taskbar and select the Manager item there tasks:
And then on the Performance tab in the CPU section it will say how many cores and how many threads you have:
If I'm not mistaken, then logical processors are threads. I just have, as I already wrote, a Pentium G3220, there are no threads in it, so I can’t say for sure, but I’m 99% sure that these are threads ..
You can even search by the model of your processor, if you know it, then look for information, characteristics and quickly find out how many threads and how many cores you have. But to be honest, it seems to me that it is best to use the CPU-Z program for these cases.
By the way, not everyone knows that these threads or Hyper-threading technology was still in Pentium 4. And before that, it seemed to be only in Xeon server processors. Well, the fact is that today Hyper-threading technology has been very, very improved, one might even say that it has been radically improved. It's just that Intel decided not to change the name, but leave it as it is. So actually the flows have improved a lot so to speak. I wrote this to the fact that there is simply an opinion that streams are nonsense and that there is no benefit from them. This opinion, it seems to me, has come from the time of the Pentium 4, because then tests often showed the same performance both with Hyper-threading enabled and disabled. But another joke is that it’s something, and in the days of Pentium 4, few programs could parallelize work and two threads, that is, work in multi-threaded mode.
My opinion is that threads improve performance very well. In general, I somehow read that in terms of performance, Intel threads are equal to AMD cores, well, something like that. It's just that AMD has a good processor, it's the FX-8300, well, it's weaker than the i7 in terms of power, while it's decently weaker. While the FX-8300 has 8 cores, the i7 has 4 cores/8 threads. These are the pie guys
Well, guys, it seems that everything, everything I could, wrote it all. I hope that everything was clear to you here, sorry if something is wrong. Good luck in life and that everything is good with you
17.11.2016