How many cores are really used or needed

[Dick Dastardly]

I was just checking out a few reddit threads the other day regarding how many cores does a cpu need to have in 2024, only to learn that even today, there's aren't that many programs that can take advantage of more than 4 cores.

Now, i'm not a technical person but i i am using a 2 core cpu in my main computer(I3 6100) and by now I would have expected to run into issues with games for example. I know more cores are useful in video rendering and some photo editing programs, but i am not using those and the existing CPU, which is an entry level cpu from 9 or so years ago, still works great for what I do.

At the moment, i'm just asking how many cores and threads are actually needed to run the latest software available today, what's the minimum and what's the recommended core count?

Also, how many cores are actually used by the currently most popular photo editing software, i'm just curious.

I remember well that with my fist computer, i could barely run anything 4 years after the initial purchase from 2004. Back then, a computer's useful lifespan was less than 5 years, today things are different and i'm happy for that. Too bad we now have to worry about melting CPUs and exploding GPUs, because that wasn't really a problem when i started becoming interested in home computers.

 

[silentstorm]

I was just checking out a few reddit threads the other day regarding how many cores does a cpu need to have in 2024, only to learn that even today, there's aren't that many programs that can take advantage of more than 4 cores.

Now, i'm not a technical person but i i am using a 2 core cpu in my main computer(I3 6100) and by now I would have expected to run into issues with games for example. I know more cores are useful in video rendering and some photo editing programs, but i am not using those and the existing CPU, which is an entry level cpu from 9 or so years ago, still works great for what I do.

At the moment, i'm just asking how many cores and threads are actually needed to run the latest software available today, what's the minimum and what's the recommended core count?

Also, how many cores are actually used by the currently most popular photo editing software, i'm just curious.

If you are just using a web browser to watch videos, news, online shopping, forum, etc. a Core 2 Duo is enough. It's also enough to run laser marking machine in factories.

I have a CD ripper software that also does format conversion. It has the ability to add how many threads I want to use, all the way to 10 cores 20 threads.

Then there are 3D software like AutoCAD, Solidwerks, etc. that are used in product designs and graphics artwork, that can tap onto more cores and threads.

I've just checked Microsoft website on Excel, it is able to max out 64 cores, for some crazy amount of workbooks and worksheets with heavy calculations.

As for games, there are a few AAA games that are 6 cores 12 threads capable. So it really comes down to what you are doing on the computer. No hard and fast rule.

 

[RLight]

I was just checking out a few reddit threads the other day regarding how many cores does a cpu need to have in 2024, only to learn that even today, there's aren't that many programs that can take advantage of more than 4 cores.

Now, i'm not a technical person but i i am using a 2 core cpu in my main computer(I3 6100) and by now I would have expected to run into issues with games for example. I know more cores are useful in video rendering and some photo editing programs, but i am not using those and the existing CPU, which is an entry level cpu from 9 or so years ago, still works great for what I do.

At the moment, i'm just asking how many cores and threads are actually needed to run the latest software available today, what's the minimum and what's the recommended core count?

Also, how many cores are actually used by the currently most popular photo editing software, i'm just curious.

If you are just using a web browser to watch videos, news, online shopping, forum, etc. a Core 2 Duo is enough. It's also enough to run laser marking machine in factories.

I have a CD ripper software that also does format conversion. It has the ability to add how many threads I want to use, all the way to 10 cores 20 threads.

Then there are 3D software like AutoCAD, Solidwerks, etc. that are used in product designs and graphics artwork, that can tap onto more cores and threads.

I've just checked Microsoft website on Excel, it is able to max out 64 cores, for some crazy amount of workbooks and worksheets with heavy calculations.

As for games, there are a few AAA games that are 6 cores 12 threads capable. So it really comes down to what you are doing on the computer. No hard and fast rule.

Agree.

I’m going to chime in and say more cores, don’t always get used. In fact I’m glad to see with Lunar Lake and Arrow lake, intel's looking at larger caches, not more cores, for use of die space. It’s a better use of silicon real estate… once you have say 10 cores, it’s hard to get something, even processor intensive, to use them. I’d rather have a higher frequency than more cores given the choice… You can always use more clock speed, but cores? Depends what you’re running. Larger cache? It’s more likely to be used, compared to adding say more cores, once you have say 8-12 cores for general purpose, gaming, and productivity. The exception being video rendering. But even then? 12 cores? You’ll start to run into memory bandwidth and suboptimal utilization of cores, even if, parallelism is supported at a given codec, meaning more cache might still be an even trade. Go figure.

 

[Awkward_Swine]

Eight cores are really the sweet spot for modern CPUs. For the newest CPUs, maybe just 2 or 4 of those eight will be "full power" cores and the remainder might be "efficiency cores".

Most PC work loads are spilt into what we refer to as "Single Core" and "Multi-Core" tasks. Photo editing is mostly single core. Video rendering or photo import/export are multi core. The value of CPUs with more than 8 cores is only delivered in workloads like video rendering and a very few others.

There is also the GPU/NPU to consider, which is increasingly used for both photo and video editing, noise reduction, and more.

So for most people not focused on video, you are not likely to take advantage of the highest end processors. Typically they just pile on the cores but are not measurable improved at single core work loads than the lower cost parts.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

I’m going to chime in and say more cores, don’t always get used. In fact I’m glad to see with Lunar Lake and Arrow lake, intel's looking at larger caches, not more cores, for use of die space. It’s a better use of silicon real estate… once you have say 10 cores, it’s hard to get something, even processor intensive, to use them. I’d rather have a higher frequency than more cores given the choice… You can always use more clock speed, but cores? Depends what you’re running. Larger cache? It’s more likely to be used, compared to adding say more cores, once you have say 8-12 cores for general purpose, gaming, and productivity. The exception being video rendering. But even then? 12 cores? You’ll start to run into memory bandwidth and suboptimal utilization of cores, even if, parallelism is supported at a given codec, meaning more cache might still be an even trade. Go figure.

I appreciate your take on the situation.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

That's very interesting, thanks.

I assume 8 cores is the sweetspot for people who try and get everything done with a single machine, not a specific job.

As for the "efficiency cores", i don't understand their purpose.

 

[svc13]

My system web browsing

CPU <1% memory 16%, GPU 0 0%, GPU 1 < 1%, Processes 195, Threads 3000.

In normal use the machine is never totally dedicated to a single applications and your application is likely to make calls to other processes

 

[number_5]

That's very interesting, thanks.

I assume 8 cores is the sweetspot for people who try and get everything done with a single machine, not a specific job.

As for the "efficiency cores", i don't understand their purpose.

"P-cores and E-cores are two types of processor cores in Intel CPUs that are designed to balance performance and energy efficiency:

• P-coresThese cores are larger and have higher clock speeds than E-cores, and are designed for high-performance tasks. They also have Hyper-Threading capabilities, which allows for simultaneous multi-threading.
• E-coresThese cores are smaller and consume less power than P-cores, and are designed for efficiency and lighter workloads. They are also used for background tasks that run constantly but don't require much processing power. E-cores don't have Hyper-Threading capabilities"

Like others said, it depends on what you do.

This is on the extreme side (36 logical processors, all hitting 100%):

 

[RLight]

That's very interesting, thanks.

I assume 8 cores is the sweetspot for people who try and get everything done with a single machine, not a specific job.

As for the "efficiency cores", i don't understand their purpose.

Background tasks. Windows and macOS now permit "tags" for services that should be used for efficiency vs performance... from ChatGPT...

Windows

On Windows, this is managed through the operating system's scheduler and can be influenced by the following mechanisms:

1. Processor Groups and Thread Affinity: Developers can specify which cores a particular thread should run on by setting the thread affinity. However, Windows' scheduler typically makes intelligent decisions to balance load across efficiency and performance cores based on system activity and priorities.
2. Quality of Service (QoS) Levels: Windows 11 introduced a feature called QoS levels that can be used to tag processes or threads for different priority levels. This can help the scheduler prioritize certain tasks for performance cores while relegating background tasks to efficiency cores.
3. Processor Sets (PSets): This is a more advanced way to manage core assignments, allowing more granular control over which cores handle specific tasks.

macOS

On macOS, the process is somewhat similar but integrated into the operating system's overall performance management:

1. Grand Central Dispatch (GCD): Apple's GCD can manage thread distribution across different cores, optimizing for efficiency and performance. Developers can use GCD to assign specific tasks to either efficiency or performance cores.
2. Energy Efficiency Guide for Mac Apps: Apple provides guidelines and tools for developers to optimize their apps for energy efficiency, which includes managing how apps use the different types of cores.
3. Core Scheduling: The macOS scheduler automatically allocates tasks to efficiency or performance cores based on the system's current state and the nature of the tasks. Developers can use APIs to give hints about the nature of their tasks, allowing the scheduler to make more informed decisions.

Things like say, cloud sync, should run with efficiency cores (E-Cores) that are power "cheap", in the background, not suck up precious P-cores, for example.

 

[silentstorm]

Agree.

I’m going to chime in and say more cores, don’t always get used. In fact I’m glad to see with Lunar Lake and Arrow lake, intel's looking at larger caches, not more cores, for use of die space. It’s a better use of silicon real estate… once you have say 10 cores, it’s hard to get something, even processor intensive, to use them. I’d rather have a higher frequency than more cores given the choice… You can always use more clock speed, but cores? Depends what you’re running. Larger cache? It’s more likely to be used, compared to adding say more cores, once you have say 8-12 cores for general purpose, gaming, and productivity. The exception being video rendering. But even then? 12 cores? You’ll start to run into memory bandwidth and suboptimal utilization of cores, even if, parallelism is supported at a given codec, meaning more cache might still be an even trade. Go figure.

I agree, more cache and higher clock speed are better for the common users at home. That reminds me of AMD strategy to put more cache into their specific cpu series X3D. Very useful for many types of workload. I'd rather have 8 cores 16 threads big fat cache running at 4.2GHz base, than to have 12 cores 24 threads tiny cache running at 2.8GHz base with 4 cores idling most of the time.

 

[kelpdiver]

Background tasks. Windows and macOS now permit "tags" for services that should be used for efficiency vs performance... from ChatGPT...

On 11. To some degree on 10. Likely not supported at all on 7, which the OP seems very fixated on.

Honestly, I feel like intel got into the E core game so they could claim to have more cores than an AMD X950 cpu. There is overhead to heteregenous cpus. Though AMD eventually got themselves into the same boat with the 79xx 3d cache cpus.

 

[Robert Zanatta]

Background tasks. Windows and macOS now permit "tags" for services that should be used for efficiency vs performance... from ChatGPT...

On 11. To some degree on 10. Likely not supported at all on 7, which the OP seems very fixated on.

Honestly, I feel like intel got into the E core game so they could claim to have more cores than an AMD X950 cpu. There is overhead to heteregenous cpus. Though AMD eventually got themselves into the same boat with the 79xx 3d cache cpus.

Intel is now pushing for more E cores, at least with mobile processors. They do away with P core hyperthreading, add more E cores and claim improved performance at lower power.

 

[The Point and Shoot Pro]

The correct answer to the original question asked is ALL of them! ha ha.

 

[tbcass]

My computer has 16 cores, 8 of which are power cores but most seldom get used. Instead with my RAW photo editors and video editors the GPU seems to do most of the work.

--
Tom

 

[RLight]

Background tasks. Windows and macOS now permit "tags" for services that should be used for efficiency vs performance... from ChatGPT...

On 11. To some degree on 10. Likely not supported at all on 7, which the OP seems very fixated on.

Honestly, I feel like intel got into the E core game so they could claim to have more cores than an AMD X950 cpu. There is overhead to heteregenous cpus. Though AMD eventually got themselves into the same boat with the 79xx 3d cache cpus.

Intel? No, you mean x86 lovers (AMD and Intel) saw what Apple was doing and “copied it”? Noooooo

…If it walks like a duck…
I’m personally not a fan of heterogeneous CPUs myself, but, with all the cloud overhead running on guest OSes these days? E cores are a better fit for cloud sync, and always on processes like mail, voice assistants, and the like. Keep that stuff off my P cores, shoot I don’t want them running, period, but that’s getting harder to avoid. You gotta go out of your way be it in Windows or especially MacOS to neuter this stuff vampire-ing my CPU time. Gonna done do a plug on that eventually. There’s some good GitHub scripts for this…