[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: bigyuuri.png (405 KB, 800x754)
405 KB PNG
if modern programs can eat gigabytes of RAM easily, why can't the same be said for CPU cores? i thought the ps4/xb1 generation (with anemic jaguar units) would've solved that issue.
>>
>>110122457
the xbox era was so bad that morrowind rebooted the entire xbox behind the scenes during every loading screen
>>
>>110122476
bethesda was so incapable of memory management that they had to use the nuclear option
xbox is bad but let's not pretend that was the problem there
>>
File: 1788102757921170.jpg (10 KB, 626x128)
10 KB JPG
>>110122457
>>
>>110122457
>why can't the same be said for CPU cores?
You need to design programs quite specially to effectively use lots of cores. Most programmers have no idea how to do that.
Even fewer know how to scale up beyond what fits inside one CPU chip. That's proper advanced programming (especially if not using MPI).
The usual way of using all those cores is to run many programs at once. That's how many browsers do it (cheating like hell behind the scenes to pretend its all one program).



[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.