Normally when I'm running encoding tasks on Handbrake it will use all 4 cores of my CPU at 100%, which is fast but obviously renders the computer somewhat unusable. With this in mind I've been messing with processor affinities in task manager and set handbrake only use 2 cores. All seems fine and dandy. 2 cores are at 100% usage, leaving the other 2 for everything else. However, I'm wondering whether this has any negative consequences? Is it safe or healthy for the CPU? Thinking of maybe even switching Handbrake to use 3 of the 4 available cores, but then there are only 2 physical cores, so I'm not sure the consequences of that.
I don't think it's a bad thing. I've never heard anything about running different cores at different loads being a bad thing. I mean, the whole point of the CPU is that it can multitask, and I don't think that the difference in load matters. I have a 3770k in my desktop, and it's cores run at different speeds all the time. Especially when I play older games, where they could only use one or two cores. (I've also been known to run Prime95 on three of four cores to heat my room during winter while surfing the web...) and I haven't had any issues with my PC over the three years or so that I've had it. As far as logical and physical cores go, I would assume that the situation is the same, but I can't say for sure. Also, the main issue that processors have is the heat output that they create. If they get too hot, they lose some lifespan. Besides, they actual cores on the die really only have the cache in common. As long as the CPU isn't overheating, I would say that you are fine. I would think that you would be in better shape running two or three cores instead of four, just based on the lower heat output that you would be experiencing. Kevin K
Running three threads will not be a problem, and windows should stay completely responsive with your CPU.
