![]() But if you do video editing, simulation, or like to install gobs of malware from the Internet, good multi-core performance can help quite a bit. It also did a reasonable job as a foot warmer for those cold winter nights.Ī lot of people who ask will benefit more from faster single-core processing. It's a power hog but had the best general-purpose computing single-core processing capability available at the time. If you want to see a single-core processor that demonstrates this clearly, look at the Intel Pentium 4 (Netburst architecture). So system designers began favoring multi-core processors. And frankly, we were reaching limitations for single-core performance with known HW architectures and fabrication processes, and some of the steps taken to eek a bit more performance reached the point of absurdity. The reason is not higher performance as some believe, but higher performance for workloads that can exploit a multi-core design, at a given price point and power budget. Multi-core processors are extremely common today and are even used in some low-cost embedded devices. The versions of the i3 and i5 processors in the 2018 Mac mini do not do hyper-threading, so don't perform as well on multi-core tests.) (The version of the i7 processor in the 2018 mini also has hyper-threading with 12 virtual cores-2 per real core-so when I do video encoding, I see CPU usage reported at greater than 1100%. I do do video encoding, so I wanted the multi-core goodness. Which Mac mini are you looking at? I have a 2018 Mac mini with a 6-core 3.2 GHz i7, and it has excellent multi-core performance. For most folks, the single core performance matters more for a quick feel in day-to-day usage. I notice that it has an extremely high Single-Core Geekbench Score and a much lower (relative to other computers) Multi-core Score.Ĭan anyone explain the significance of this? When is the computer faster and when would it lag?Īednichols explained it well. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |