geeze what trolling...
unfortunately youre wrong. The answer is not as simple as add more cores.
There is always a balance compromise between characteristics. In this case IPC and number of cores.
1st of all programs need to be written to handle the hardware. A major example is CAD.
And if it weren't for Intel holding us back we would have had more cores years ago, and, because they're the industry leader more support for more cores at a desktop level.
Anything that uses more than 4 cores right now is because of AMD, and, down to AMD. Just like 64 bit support that Intel balked at because it wasn't necessary in a desktop computer. That one worked, then.
for example AutoCAD, 3DSMax uses only 1 core. Yet when rendering in such programs they use multicores.
the point of more cores as it stands currently is mainly for multi tasking.
Professional software is written to run on workstations and servers. Intel have not been tight, or have held back in that sector of the market. They've had no choice, because AMD have been knocking out 16 core CPUs for ages. They've also been making boards that support 4 CPUs and more, so we're talking 64 cores.
It has nothing to do with the business practices of intel or AMD. The manufactures of software, API's etc are the main reason for any issues on the subject. Without the development in particular to use more cores then more cores does nothing except give you more multi tasking potential...
Rubbish.
I have here an Intel "I9" prototype with six cores. Without the fancy name it's simply a 6 core Xeon with Hyperthreading that runs at 1.8ghz. It is one of the very first prototypes for a six core CPU that Intel were planning in 2008. They never did release it at a user level (well, what I would consider to be a user level) because Bulldozer had a weak IPC and no one seemed to care that it was quite a quick CPU when used properly.
All they cared about was laughing at AMD, and, being turkeys voting for Christmas. They didn't care that Intel only released that particular CPU in one guise as a 980/990X.
A while back when I bought the ES chip I did some research, and, studied the pin out locations on 1366. It literally took me about twelve hours to compile all of the comparisons, but, when done I basically had a 980x only with the second QPI enabled. That was the only difference between the Xeon I had and the 980x.
Why did Intel disable the second QPI in the 980x? because basically they wanted to limit their 'extreme' customers to six cores. That meant that companies like EVGA could not make a board that ran two 980x CPUs, only the SR1 or whatever it was called that could run, and overclock, two Xeons.
So what did Intel do with 2011 Xeons? disable the overclocking via strap and bus, that way the Xeons would be of little use to the extreme user.
All of that was deliberate. All of the locking on Sandybridge non K CPUs was deliberate. All of the choke holds on the overclockable CPU market was deliberate. They even started selling warranties for overclocked Sandybridge CPUs.
closest comparison is RAM. 8 GB is no faster than 16 GB if you only use 5 GB...
AMD's only way of doing anything in the CPU market is add more cores to a dated technology. Whilst Intel change their architecture.
AMD know that there's little point throwing money away. If they can make cheap and cheerful products with lots of cores in them then they will. They may not lead the pack, but, that means nothing as Intel are finding out now.
Intel are die shrinking now. That's their new game. And, they're not doing it for us. They are doing it to make energy efficient CPUs for tablets and laptops etc BUT ! they are making them all sound like they were made for us. Devil's Canyon was supposedly a favour.
A favour you have to pay for, that's just a rehash. Yawn ! they've been doing crap like that for years.
the argument of IPC vs Cores is NOT like a role playing game. You cant just add 10 skill points to efficiency only. It is spread across multiple attributes.
Efficiency matters more than cores because of the very fact you don't use a billion cores. Server spec chips are massive multicore and efficient machines because they multitask heavily, for example in big businesses with a multi forest domains. Where literally 24 threads might look after 24 things.
CBA getting into IPC. That's what Intel want us to want. What we should have wanted was more cores, and, a pushing to make sure that more cores are used in desktops. But no, drip feed us two cores every five years or so.
Yawn.
youre obviously biased. I myself do prefer intel than AMD cpus becasue they offer what is important - high efficiency.
why buy a 220W 8 core(thread) when you can have a better 8 thread cpu at 84W. An upfront extra cost of £40 is nothing when you have to spend an extra £40 on a bigger PSU for the less efficient package...
I'm obviously biased. Take a look at this yeah?
All mine. 50/50 from what I can see. Two hex cored Intel rigs, two AMD rigs. Two Titans, one GTX 480 Lightning and one AMD R7990.
Hardly bloody biased, is it?
The issue here is you are always going to have fanboys who don't know the actual facts jumping into threads like this and not quite understanding what is being said.
I'm not arguing about Intel's dominance. I'm arguing that they are
**** taking bumhuggers.
And that's about all I have to say, really.
...........that wont cool at 4.6 unless unless you lap and delidd them !
