3 ms·
> If the 8GHz core existed then you'd still be able to get 3 8GHz cores. Well no. Right now you can get ~5GHz cores and they draw close to 300 watts per core,
by zrm 6y ago
> If the 8GHz core existed then you'd still be able to get 3 8GHz cores.
Well no. Right now you can get ~5GHz cores and they draw close to 300 watts per core, which is why they can't run all cores at 5GHz on threaded programs. For the same amount of power as one core at 5GHz you can get 64 cores at almost 3GHz, e.g. ThreadRipper 3990X.
An 8GHz core would presumably draw 500+ watts per core and maybe even a lot more than that. To get the same performance as the 3990X, you would either need a single 185GHz core (basically impossible) or >23 8GHz cores (expected power draw >11kW). That would cost thousands a year in electricity, but a normal 20 amp household circuit breaker would trip before you hit 2.5kW anyway.
More than that, by the time you write code that can scale to 16+ threads, 64 isn't that much harder, and 256 isn't much harder than that. So get used to it, because in a few years there are going to be 256-core mobile devices and 1024+ core desktops and servers.
- p1necone 6y agoglobular-toast seems to be arguing past everyone because they're imagining a reality where a. these hypothetical ultra high clocked single core CPUs actually exist, and b. they have unlimited spending money and don't care at all about power usage or cooling.