Is there a point in 6 or 8 core processors yet?
Will we ever leave the 4 core territory?
More cores is great for servers. For consumer stuff, the only point of more cores is to let windows run more telemetry spyware in the background. For computation stuff, GPUs > CPU cores in most cases.
>Is there a point in more gigabyte+ RAM yet?
>Will we ever leave the megabytes RAM territory?
>>55319014
6 and 8 core processors already exist. And 3d / visual fx professionals use them all the time.
>>55319060
Life is fucking suffering.
As someone who uses quite a lot Premiere pro or 3DS max i either have to drop a fuckton of money on the cheapest Intel 6-cores or buy a FX 9590.
What do i do
>>55319127
Buy a 8350
>>55319127
Buy a 2670v1 machine off eBay like a Z820.
>>55319127
Buy an FX-8350.
The FX-9590 is a stupid CPU (I'm running one right now) it only works with a select few high end motherboards and requires absurd amounts of power (220W) and hence really really powerful cooling solutions.
>>55319127
I got my 5820k for $285 on sale at microcenter several months ago.
$150 X99 motherboard and it's cheaper than a 6700k + Z170 board.
>>55319014
My fucking phone has eight cores. Is there a point in producing gimped processors simply to keep autists from whining?
>>55319014
Most consumer based programs are not optimized for them. Sure, your computer will try to do its best to schedule across cores but they really don't come into their own unless the applications were designed for large numbers of cores in the first place. So, you likely won't see single process improvement but you may see better performance with multiple independent tasks. Will there come a time when these are relevant? Yes, the number of lines of code in any system is growing at a rate faster than the transistors in the CPUs. This means that future ( and some current ) systems will need to be running tons of software and will require CPUs to work on large numbers of tasks.
Basically, if you have an application that is optimized for multi-threaded processors or if you are running many processes then the more cores will help. If you are trying to boost performance for just a for example game, you'll likely not need the larger number of cores since they rely mostly on single core performance ( latency vs throughput oriented application ) especially when you consider that much of the workload is offloaded to the GPU anyways. Not to say that games won't make use of the multiple cores, they do, but you'll get diminishing returns as you increase core numbers.
Never buy AMD shit. Buying used xeons is cheaper and more effective. The motherboards are a bit limited though..
>>55319014
You do know that the kernel schedules tasks across multiple cores right? That individual programs fighting for extra cpus is a much worse scenario than a low level distribution of shared resources right? That you are behind schedule on shitposting about how degrees are a meme from your NEET cave right? No, you don't. You know nothing.
>>55319014
>4 cores
Nigga is this 2005? Just because you only care about consumer gayming parts doesn't mean there aren't processors with 30 physical cores RIGHT now for sale
It entirely depends on your needs. I could easily utilize 8 cores
>>55319014
>Is there a point in 6 or 8 core processors yet?
The usefulness of multi-core processors is proportionate to the ability of the software you run to utilize them.
>>55319048
Well, at least you're exposing the problem: more cores are only helpful if you can do parallel programming, and in practice at the moment that means data parallel which means GPGPU.
It's sort of like the sad tale of the Intel MIC. They made a processor with a lot of cores, which became a solution in search of a problem. For a while they thought they'd replace GPUs with general purpose processors, but thankfully someone realized there's no reason to do software rasterizing. (Strictly speaking there is, but nobody does nonlinear projections.) Now what I hear is that MIC has become a processor for scientific computing, i.e., these supercomputer pissing-matches. But that gets into the great scientific delusion that more flops and more data will bring us enlightenment.
>>55319014
AMD probably has a 24 core model ready for when Intel launches an 8 core CPU.
>>55323348
>for when Intel launches an 8 core CPU
That's already happened
>>55323348
Intel literally has a 22 core CPU on the market that you can buy today
