6 ms·

That's nitpicking semantics. They mean anything less than a quad core (excepting some hypothetical ultra high clocked single core cpu that doesn't exist) would

That's nitpicking semantics. They mean anything less than a quad core (excepting some hypothetical ultra high clocked single core cpu that doesn't exist) would heavily bottleneck most modern games to the extent that only pretty low end GPUs would even be worth using. They said "require" as shorthand for that because they (apparently wrongly) expected people to follow the "strongest plausible interpretation" rule.

globular-toast 7y ago
So the latest games require the latest CPUs? Well, no shit. The points I'm referring to are where the comments above say that games need multi-threading, or need multiple cores. Both are absurd statements. They try hard to do multiple threading only because multiple cores is what they CPU manufacturers are giving us. Nobody wants, much less needs, multiple cores.
- p1necone 7y ago
  CPU manufacturers are giving us multi core CPUs because it's no longer practical (because of heat and power draw) to just keep scaling frequencies. People are saying that you need multi core CPUs because there are no single core CPUs in existence that are fast enough. You're talking past everyone because you're arguing hypotheticals, and assuming everyone else is also talking about hypotheticals, but they're not.
  - globular-toast 7y ago
    Just check the original context. "Best single core performance, which is what matters". There are no hypotheticals. Single core performance exists. Look at the other replies. People who don't understand the difference between concurrency and parallelism. These people actually think multiple cores are a good thing. What you don't seem to understand is that CPU manufacturers could have scaled up performance while still delivering a single core. They went the multi core route because it's much easier for them. Their marketing departments have won, though.
    - SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
      No, the went multicore because 5 GHz is the physical limit for modern semiconductor processes. And IPC is also hitting its limits.
    - SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
      It might actually be useful to have a second core, to service hardware and peripherals. This way you'd have smoother performance, because you would not need to flush the cache on every interrupt.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Assuming the same power budget, same cooling, same semiconductor process, both x86, etc. the best single core you could make would lose to just two cores off a desktop chip you can buy today, let alone 8/10/12.

globular-toast 7y ago

So the latest games require the latest CPUs? Well, no shit. The points I'm referring to are where the comments above say that games need multi-threading, or need multiple cores. Both are absurd statements. They try hard to do multiple threading only because multiple cores is what they CPU manufacturers are giving us. Nobody wants, much less needs, multiple cores.

p1necone 7y ago
CPU manufacturers are giving us multi core CPUs because it's no longer practical (because of heat and power draw) to just keep scaling frequencies. People are saying that you need multi core CPUs because there are no single core CPUs in existence that are fast enough. You're talking past everyone because you're arguing hypotheticals, and assuming everyone else is also talking about hypotheticals, but they're not.
- globular-toast 7y ago
  Just check the original context. "Best single core performance, which is what matters". There are no hypotheticals. Single core performance exists. Look at the other replies. People who don't understand the difference between concurrency and parallelism. These people actually think multiple cores are a good thing. What you don't seem to understand is that CPU manufacturers could have scaled up performance while still delivering a single core. They went the multi core route because it's much easier for them. Their marketing departments have won, though.
  - SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
    No, the went multicore because 5 GHz is the physical limit for modern semiconductor processes. And IPC is also hitting its limits.
  - SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
    It might actually be useful to have a second core, to service hardware and peripherals. This way you'd have smoother performance, because you would not need to flush the cache on every interrupt.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Assuming the same power budget, same cooling, same semiconductor process, both x86, etc. the best single core you could make would lose to just two cores off a desktop chip you can buy today, let alone 8/10/12.