5 ms·
I don't think this is a good way to look at it. In my opinion, having a "perfect" single core is much more valuable than an octo-core CPU. Take a look at the iP
by jeffhuys 11y ago
I don't think this is a good way to look at it. In my opinion, having a "perfect" single core is much more valuable than an octo-core CPU. Take a look at the iPhone 6s. Two cores, and it runs faster than some octo-core Androids. I may be a bit of a noob in this area, but something tells me that is significant.
- wodenokoto 11y agoI'm also a noob, but according to parent, the reason why the iPhone runs faster is that all optimisation is done for 1 core, which would then leave the 8 cores doing nothing, despite having much, much more raw power available than the single iPhone core. Or put in another way: If we want more raw processing power, we need more cores, but we don't want more cores because software is optimised for a single core.
- tigershark 11y agoNot true, even in multithreaded scenarios the A9 is more performant than the multicore android phones or it has a comparable performance in the worst case if I remember correctly. In single threaded scenarios it simply destroys all the other mobile chips and it is comparable with some low power Intel chips.
- wodenokoto 11y agoThat is the point. If software can't use multithreads, then strong single threads will win.
- atemerev 11y agoYes — because most applications are still written as if for single core. This is the vicious cycle I am talking about.
- tremon 11y agoStill, your earlier comment completely misses the mark. Distributed algorithms rely more heavily on a well-functioning scheduler than single-thread solutions. I fail to see how your comment about "squeezing every last drop of performance from a single core" matches the article being discussed.