4 ms·
I'm still waiting for a proper 8 core consumer x86 CPU. AMD's chips don't count because they perform worse than the ones from intel.
by Gurkenmaster 12y ago
I'm still waiting for a proper 8 core consumer x86 CPU. AMD's chips don't count because they perform worse than the ones from intel.
- Roritharr 12y agoWhat is the consumer application for an 8 core CPU? I can't think of one, as of 2015, that i'd not call a commercial application.
- rsynnott 12y agoThere are definitely prosumer applications; I'd quite like faster builds at home but am not quite willing to pay for a Xeon, say. Bit of a niche market, though.
- DanWaterworth 12y agoYou're only saying that because most programs are incapable of taking advantage of multiple cores, but if 8 core CPUs were the norm, I guarantee programs (where performance matters) would change.
- Kurtz79 12y agoIf 4 cores are the norm now, and most programs cannot take advantage of them, what it the rationale for which things would change in the case of 8 cores ?
- DanWaterworth 12y ago4 cores aren't quite the norm. The computer I'm currently at is a Dell XPS 13, the CPU is an i7-4510U, which is dual core. Regardless, in most circumstances, 4 cores are only just above break even point for parallel code, so the pay off isn't big enough.
- deeviant 12y ago* Transcoding large video files, especially in real time. * Various Hobbyist projects. * Extreme multi-tasking (running a game, 100 firefox tabs, home server, encoding, etc) * Seti@home/folding@home -> computational philanthropy.
- sp332 12y agoCould you be more specific about why a consumer 8-core CPU isn't the consumer 8-core CPU you wanted?
- undersuit 12y agoI don't know why he's complaining. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1340?vs=1316 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1340?vs=1316 AMD's newest processor compares quite well to the nearest Intel octo-core that costs 3x as much.