[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: How-do-CPU-Cores-work.jpg (195 KB, 2048x1080)
195 KB JPG
Stop believing their lies.
You do NOT need more CPU cores. One core is just fine. In fact one core can do the same things multiple can.
The only reasons why they are trying you to sell more are: More money for them, easier way to spy on you with letting malware run on other cores.
Stop.
Buying.
Multi.
Core.
CPUs.
Just stop it. They are harmful.
>>
wait till you find out how many of cores are in gpu.
>>
File: notevenbait.jpg (20 KB, 446x448)
20 KB JPG
>>109618951
>>
>>109618951
OP, did you get stuck in 2008 or something?
>>
>tfw you fell for the bulldozer hype and still can't get over it 15 years later
>>
>>109618951
I wonder what the latest single core x86-64 CPU you can buy is. Must be at least a decade old.
>>
>>109618951
Man, do you really think you can outperform some people in trying to do this? Intentionally or not?
>>
>>109619113
Imagine using x86_64. Fucking poorjeet
>>
>>109618951
Or, and get this, multicore is needed for...multicore workloads.
>>
>>109619135
x86 > ARM (which Literally translates to german word" poor"
>>
i like my 24-core 48-thread w7-2495x
>>
>>109620720
based, i have dual xeons running 96 cores.
>>
>>109619113
probably one of the atoms, there's ones up to 2013 with one core
>>
that was the original intention, to just keep making one core faster, but there's this pesky thing called physics in the way of that.
https://archive.is/X1ZPm

can't make clocks any higher since it generates too much heat, can't make the chips bigger because then propagation latency limits clock speeds.

it also just makes sense to have a handful of cores over one even if the one core is hypothetically as fast as the handful, since you're probably doing more than one thing on it at once, and if you're interrupting one core way more to switch tasks, then all that context switching is just wasted performance that could have just been done on an idle core instead
>>
>>109618951
I was promises 64 cores as the new consumer standard, but after 7 years I still have to buy into the $$$Threadripper$$$ line to get more than 16 cores.
15 years ago I had 4 cores, 7 years later I had 6 cores, now I can get 8 cores. This is taking forever. Double the core count per $ in 15 years???



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.