come at me bros
>>51971311
>More cores means it's better lol
>>51971311
>@3Ghz
meme
>>51971346
Many low frequency cores > few high frequency cores.
That isn't opinion, this is fact. You can't scale frequency as cheaply as you can scale the number of cores.
>>51971311
No, no. You come at me
>>51971411
>frequency
What is this, 1995? Frequency is an outdated metric.
>>51971437
>32 cores
>only 32 GiB RAM
What on Earth is this system for?
>>51971471
Exchange server.
I need to get more RAM for it. At least another 32 GB
>>51971411
Price isn't the only reason not to scale frequency. Frequency increase means a lot more heat and it doesn't even follow a linear fashion. Also, increasing frequency requires smaller fabrication techniques which are actually getting close to the limit. Nowadays some technologies achieve transistors with only 14 atoms width.
Btw having a lot of cores doesn't mean everythig is going to benefit. Some serial algorithms can't run in parallel and some programs are just not thread oriented yet.
>>51971437
settle down linus, no one cares about your dual CPU sandy bridge era Xeon gaming rig
>>51971411
sure but only at things that can handle all those cores, for everything else the fewer cores will win out.
The majority of applications people run on a day to day basis just can't make use of so many cores.
You can throw at us cinebench and whatever benchmarks but most people don't run those applications on even a monthly basis.
>>51971566
>>51971519
I'm a gamer and visual/parallel programmer, so I have many uses for these cores.
>>51971566
Chrome spawns a lot of threads for web work and rendering shit, so...
>>51971628
Sure new software might benefit.
Get Fallout 3 and try to run it on a 2+ core system... It literally needs a workaround on the config files or it won't work... Just an example of dumb/hardcoded features produced by big corps.
>>51971628
What the crap is a "visual programmer" anyway?
>>51971661
maybe a side-effect of console port?
>>51971678
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_computing
>>51971966
Maybe, that's why you shouldn't port shit unless done right.
>>51971632
>Chrome
That also doesn't mean it will benefit from that many cores. Chrome will spawn many threads, but only one or two will do *real* work. Spawning lots of threads that are I/O bound rather than CPU bound is CONCURRENCY, not parallelism.
>>51972504
B-But they render stuff...
>>51967341
>single core performance is a meme
Yeah, right, fuck off.
