Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Higher core counts usually mean lower clocks and more cost. If the applications you're running don't scale well with more cores, then you're just spending more money for less realized performance.
The thing is, you can't ever ignore the cost, and very few people are going to pony up $1000+ for stuff they don't need.
Unless you really need a HEDT platform, the average user is much better served by a mainstream platform from the cost/performance perspective. Even high core count mainstream platforms (8C/16T) are pushing it for the average user.
Nobody can deny what is said. For me, coming from an X58 + Xeon, and having a really competitive asshole 'acquaintance', is making me want to adopt an x299/i9 combo. Srsly.
Nobody can deny what is said. For me, coming from an X58 + Xeon, and having a really competitive asshole 'acquaintance', is making me want to adopt an x299/i9 combo. Srsly.
I really need a new rig for gaming. Stable 60fps sounds great. Last time I was playing a fps game (I don't game often) it was Shadow Warrior 2 and the fps tanked to 0 fps for around 4 minutes lolBecause I'm apparently the only person on the planet that can't notice fps differences beyond a stable 60fps and my i5 6600k still does that with no problems.
I doubt i'll ever have use for more than 8C16T cpu. I may buy a 12C24T one if the AMD leaks are true though just coz why not? Well mainly for the higher clockspeed of the 3700X
I think there would need to be some new compelling use case for me to use more than 8 cores at home. My first home pc was a 486dx2 so I'm aware of the increases in computational power. The only use I have now for a faster PC is gaming which I find myself not as interested in these days. I dabble in programming a little C# at the moment but visual studio seems to run alright on my i5-3570k. Other than that the usual web browsing and netflix streaming is all I really do on my PC. I could probably make a case for me not needing 8C16T at all lol.Not trying to call you out, but that's a really short sighted way to view computers and technology.
You really couldn't see ANY reason at all to get more than 8 cores... even in an incredibly long time like say 25 years? NEVER?
I think there would need to be some new compelling use case for me to use more than 8 cores at home. My first home pc was a 486dx2 so I'm aware of the increases in computational power. The only use I have now for a faster PC is gaming which I find myself not as interested in these days. I dabble in programming a little C# at the moment but visual studio seems to run alright on my i5-3570k. Other than that the usual web browsing and netflix streaming is all I really do on my PC. I could probably make a case for me not needing 8C16T at all lol.
I have my opinion and you have yours. This reminds me of the debates when the Q6600 came out. It wasn't very interesting then and it isn't now.There's a difference between not needing something and never needing something. You were shown to be wrong and now your backtracking.
I have my opinion and you have yours. This reminds me of the debates when the Q6600 came out. It wasn't very interesting then and it isn't now.
The best way to do it is get a mainstream computer, and show them in benchmarks that yours runs things faster and you paid half for it.Nobody can deny what is said. For me, coming from an X58 + Xeon, and having a really competitive asshole 'acquaintance', is making me want to adopt an x299/i9 combo. Srsly.
Q6600 was the bomb what U talkin' bout!
EPEEN chip <3
This is the correct answer. We're deep into the core count wars, but what out there actually scales past 4 or even 2 threads? We are just starting to get games that utilize 6 or more, and they're still few and far between. From a productivity perspective I don't use anything currently that scales past 8.As long as I can keep single-thread performance up, sure.
It is always to have more cores than SW that is being used can utilize.
What if the software only uses 20 -50% of one core?
Intel can't even keep 8 core CPUs cool.
AMD Faildozer's "Eight-Core Processor"s ran much hotter, especially those that had 5GHz turbo XDIntel can't even keep 8 core CPUs cool. CPU temperatures are absolutely absurd. Really, a lot of computer technology is basically in a place where it isn't even acceptable as a consumer product. It's basically prototype hardware that gets sold like it's actually ready for prime time.
Because the biggest difference in system performance is the GPU. It is a waste of money, like going to 64 GB of RAM in a gaming system.
Nobody can deny what is said. For me, coming from an X58 + Xeon, and having a really competitive asshole 'acquaintance', is making me want to adopt an x299/i9 combo. Srsly.
AMD Faildozer's "Eight-Core Processor"s ran much hotter, especially those that had 5GHz turbo XD
Still needs at least 2 core processor otherwise overall system performance will be terrible.What if the software only uses 20 -50% of one core?
This is the correct answer. We're deep into the core count wars, but what out there actually scales past 4 or even 2 threads? We are just starting to get games that utilize 6 or more, and they're still few and far between. From a productivity perspective I don't use anything currently that scales past 8.
Completely agree, and that will actually continue to be the case. As we've discussed before, there are a few main categories:
1) Single thread
2) Lightly parallel
3) Embarrassingly parallel
Once you truly have a workload which scales up well past 8-wide, you're realistically heading forGPUmanycore territory. Batch processing of huge data sets, no data dependencies between workloads, and usually very little branching. Perfect for aGPUmanycore.
Fixed it for you.
You can use it to play Witcher 3. (Of course RAM controller was on chipset and it only supported DDR2 which had bad write rates.) But it was great for emulation. These in poverty overclocked E5xxx, or E7200/E7300. These who had money to make custom water cooling overclocked Qxxx. PS2 emulation required CPU power and Intel CPU allowing non standard compliant handling of denormals. (Aka DNZ.)Q6600 was the bomb what U talkin' bout!
EPEEN chip <3