I don't understand the resistance I saw in the article. I say bring it on: 64 cores is great. Cost isn't an issue because everything trickles down eventually.

I don't understand the resistance I saw in the article. I say bring it on: 64 cores is great. Cost isn't an issue because everything trickles down eventually. Modern operating systems have plenty of things to do with multiple cores. Just having extra cores and running multiple single-threaded applications makes for a smoother experience. With actual multithreading, eg compiling, graphics rendering things trivially get better. That was certainly the case going from 4 to 16 using a 1950x when I upgraded my desktop. The real limit will probably become bandwidth to keep all those cores humming at full speed. I can easily see a future where we'll routinely expect some cores to be io or ram limited and that particular performance tradeoff will be commonly known to non-technical people. (Not just CS, dev / ops datacenter types). This kind of tradeoff is already in the current 32 core offering AFAIK.