Cpu at 80% Utilization doing 190 processes using 2300 threads.

[oscarg24107]

This is a AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 4 cores 4 threads APU base speed 3.85 GHz but at 80% Utilization reaches 3.75 Ghz that use to do 300 or so processes using 3500 or so threads at idle. My laptop that has a Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7200U CPU @ 2.50Ghz base clock does 251 processes using 3125 threads at idle. Both say they got Hyper-V support according to task manager. Does this mean my laptop is now faster then my desktop?

[Supafly]

That makes no sense. You are clearly mixing things up.

You can't have a 4 thread cpu and it use 3500 threads at idle. that's 3496 threads that don't exist.
Same goes for the i5 a 4 thread cpu using 3125 threads, 3121 threads more threads than exists when idle.

The AMD cpu is better than the i5.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Suicidal Monkey:

You can't have a 4 thread cpu and it use 3500 threads at idle. that's 3496 threads that don't exist.

A thread is merely a part of a (larger) process. The number of processes, let alone threads, a CPU can manage isn't limited to its physical or logical core count. While it is technically true that a single processor can not execute multiple processes at EXACTLY the same time (as in, concurrently), keep in mind that modern CPUs operate at hundreds of millions, if not billions, of clock cycles (within the time period of a second), and you can still get a lot done within that time space. Also, not all processes (or threads) are equal in demand; not all need the full resources of an entire processor (or core, in a multi-processor and/or multi-core system) to simply be able to exist. The vast majority are actually very unlike that.

If on Windows, open Task Manager and take a look. You will likely see hundreds if not thousands of threads on any relatively modern version of Windows (and this is seemingly what OP did and where the confusion is stemming from).

That said, you're right on the rest. The number of processes and threads is simply the demands of a given software environment at a given moment. It has zero relation to a CPU's actual capability.

The Ryzen 3 2200G (Zen [1] architecture, 4 core CPU, 3.5 GHz+) is a better overall CPU than the Core i5 7200U (Sky Lake/Kaby Lake architecture, 2 core CPU with SMT, 2.5 GHz+ to 3.1 GHz). That's not counting the IGP (integrated graphics) differences, which are also in favor of the Ryzen 3 3200G.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Don't matter how many processes and threads the OS says is running. What matters is what's actually doing something (most things will be idle unless you make it do something) and when doing its functions, is your cpu enough or is your cpu slow, fast, etc.

IDK what your comparing but you don't make any sense. The 2200G happens to be doing something while the 7200U is not.

7200U is junk, all Intel cpus that end in U are terrible they are very low powered cpus for office work and multimedia.

[oscarg24107]

Oh, okay I see. And yeah I'v noticed I made a poor decision when it came to that laptop. One more thing all AMD based laptop are just overall better for both gaming and productive uses right?

[_I_]

amds igpu is better than intels igpu

for a gaming laptop intel cpus are better and nvidia gpus are much better than any igpu
*nvidia mx 150-250 will be close to vega 11, but any gtx will wipe the floor with it