To explore the differences between dual control policies on energy consumption and carbon emissions, a national dynamic computable general equilibrium(CGE) model was constructed and the characteristic was innovatively utilized that carbon constraints in the model can indirectly affect energy consumption changes. Under the premise of meeting both total and intensity targets, it simulates and conducts a multi-perspective comparative analysis of both energy consumption dual control and carbon emissions dual control policies. The results indicate that merely increasing carbon restrictions is detrimental to economic development, with a gross domestic product(GDP) loss exceeding 0.15% in scenarios of strict carbon restrictions compared to the baseline scenario. Targeting high-energy-consuming industries rather than all industries more significantly promotes energy transition, with the proportion of electricity in the primary energy structure in 2030 being 0.10% to 0.15% higher in scenarios targeting high-energy-consuming industries compared to those restricting all industries. Moreover, restricting all industries significantly boosts employment, with jobs increasing by 105 000, 290 000, and 623 000 in the "14th Five-Year Plan," "15th Five-Year Plan," and "16th Five-Year Plan" periods, respectively, compared to the baseline scenario. Comparing dual control policies, carbon dual control is more advantageous, under the same carbon emission constraints, the carbon emissions dual control scenario has a higher energy consumption demand by 30 million tons of standard coal, better aligning with the control of energy consumption elasticity. Through the conclusions of model simulation, the policy implications are drawn as follows: it is necessary to transition to an assessment system primarily based on the total amount and intensity of carbon emissions, on the basis of perfecting the dual control of energy consumption. Priority should be given to conducting total carbon emission control assessments for high-energy-consuming industries, and there should be an active and steady expansion of the carbon market coverage along with strengthened effective government regulation.