安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题



EDIT: missed you mentioned the remaster. While that does list CPUs with more than 1 core it's possible that your CPU can handle doing most if not all of the work on a single core
oooh that makes sense actually. thx man :)
Did edit while you were replying. Your CPU is 50% better than recommended CPU
In most cases software will use the resources it needs that are available. If it's using fewer resources than you assume it ought to be, but the software is still running fine, well the problem is probably your assumption.
And in general not every bit of software benefits from arbitrarily throwing more cores at a problem. if the work is entirely sequential in nature, where each bit depends on the previous bit, it might not be a use case for multiple cores. But something where the work can always be split up and bits done on all the cores and reassembled at the end, like say video encoding, will often use all the cores.
There just isn't a one size fits all solution to how many cores a program should be using. And the number of cores being utilized can also vary within the program itself. again video encoding, when you're just poking around the UI and configuring settings, you're probably only using a single core. When you actually begin the work of encoding then all the core might be engaged.