9 ms·

That's why I went with a i7-8700k for my desktop which was at the time the fastest single thread performance (except i7-8086k which was IMO too much money for a

That's why I went with a i7-8700k for my desktop which was at the time the fastest single thread performance (except i7-8086k which was IMO too much money for a tiny bit faster). It has 6 physical cores (12 virtual) which I think is enough for almost all workloads. No complaints. They've now been superseded by the i9-9700k and i9-9900k which each have 8 physical cores and are slightly faster per single threads. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html Software is nowhere near making use of all those threads under most circumstances IMO. Cue all the people saying how they couldn't live without their 32 threads...

sangnoir 8y ago
> Cue all the people saying how they couldn't live without their 32 threads I can live without 24 threads, but I love not having my computer become unusable because I'm encoding video or doing some other CPU-heavy task. having more than 4 threads has opened a whole new world of thinking of how to parallelize common tasks - not ever having to wait for your computer feels like a super-power. Paradoxically, this has freed me up to use an ARM chromebook for day-to-day usage - when I need firepower, I remote into the TR workstation (smartplug + boot on power BIOS + dynamic DNS) I'll never stop feeling a little exhilaration from typing "make -j 22"