I'd go for 8 core. As has already been said 8 is enough to keep up with the crowd in the forseeable future. Any more is pointless as pretty much everything a computer does is a serial task leaving multiple processors unused. If I'm honest I'm happy with 2 cores.
Interesting opinions.
Am wondering if there are other tricks CPU manufacturers are willing to do if everyone thinks that the effectiveness of increasing cores doesn't scale so well...
I do recall AMD talking a bit about reverse hyperthreading (running 1 thread on multiple cores), though I wonder how effective that could be...
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Interesting opinions.
Am wondering if there are other tricks CPU manufacturers are willing to do if everyone thinks that the effectiveness of increasing cores doesn't scale so well...
I do recall AMD talking a bit about reverse hyperthreading (running 1 thread on multiple cores), though I wonder how effective that could be...
Wouldn't that theoretically allow for more efficient uses of cores? I'm so tired of seeing only one core stressed at a time. Those other cores are so lazy
Hellgiver Wrote:ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Interesting opinions.
Am wondering if there are other tricks CPU manufacturers are willing to do if everyone thinks that the effectiveness of increasing cores doesn't scale so well...
I do recall AMD talking a bit about reverse hyperthreading (running 1 thread on multiple cores), though I wonder how effective that could be...
Wouldn't that theoretically allow for more efficient uses of cores? I'm so tired of seeing only one core stressed at a time. Those other cores are so lazy
Doing that may be difficult to do. And many applications are programmed serially, eg, do one action, after that, do the next, etc. Reverse hyperthreading would require the processor to be able to identify code which can be parallelised. Am not sure, but isn't this already done to some degree with stuff like
register renaming anyway?