ManBearPig

XrayMan

Nereus
MY TURN!  ..just kidding ;)

     

My turn?? 
 
 
 
 
 
On topic: give me 22 cores

with ~20 of them sitting idling.

ManBearPig

stalinx20
with ~20 of them sitting idling.

.....still trolling this thread 

Yep, have a good day. You all know I'm right, but that doesn't matter, "it's the amount of cores that matter". Keep living that dream guys, enjoy your 22+ cores.

stalinx20

bcavnaugh

NazcaC2
bcavnaugh, it's ok to shed light on the types of businesses who would use this type of hardware if someone doesn't understand how it fits.
 
Several threads in the Computer Industry News forum don't apply to regular consumers - that's not the point.  The point is to introduce Computer Industry News and that's exactly what Xray and others have done in this forum (regardless of the type of user it's for).
 
#############
 
Personally, I think it will be interesting to see how far Intel can push it.

What! I sorry but why are you telling me this. Should you not be telling stalinx20 this and not me.

Of course Computer Industry News is for all news related to computers. I think the fact I pointed out that this processor was aimed for enterprise/server level made you assume that I was claiming that everybody on evga forums "is a consumer". I never said that. I did quote that "EVGA is aimed pretty much for consumer level customers"; they are. Does that make me claim that "everybody is a consumer based customer"? No. You're claiming that to be my point. Did I complain that Intel continues to stack more cores on top, claiming they have a "better" Processor than the one before? You bet I did. My only point is that they are not focusing on individual cores and what they're capable of doing. They are not improving the core structure, and the amount of workload each core is capable of doing before it tanks, and if they can actually make the cores in their inner self "do more". That is what I was grasping, I'm not really sure what you were going on about how the computer industry news isn't just meant for gamers. You made that claim.

 
To clarify about the future speed of ALL PROCESSORS 
there is a limit to the top speed of processors due to the die shrink due to distance between traces and transistors -  voltage increases in the core make for higher leakage and internal shorting
so as the traces get closer the voltage cannot go as high - so overclocking ability goes down
 
Intel is making IPC changes improving speed
but clock speed is not gonna move much over the next few yrs - maybe 1GHZ max increase
Intel and AMD are already talking about chip stacking - so like chips on top of each other and maybe ram on top of that - or on chip
more core and more LV2 LV3 cache or Dram on chip
 
this also requires material changes that allow for internal chip cooling or Electrically charged cooling
we are hitting limits already with Die shrinks and current materials anything beyond 7nm is not gonna be easy ...4nm or less are more extreme yet
 
the future of all chips is more cores - get used to that - it's coming
and Microsoft has to redesign the core kernel and make kernel improvements over the next few yrs for that
not that we are getting a new OS... win 10 is the last OS - just get use to updates all the time
 
 
some light reading for you all
http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-03-12/after-moores-law 
 
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3109177/computers/idf-2016-powerful-chips-robot-brains-and-super-fast-data-lasers.html#slide8 
 
DDR5 memory already
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3109505/components/dram-will-live-on-as-ddr5-memory-is-slated-to-reach-computers-in-2020.html 
 
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/reach-for-the-skyscraper-chips-that-beat-the-moores-law-limit/ 
 
 

Having the state of mind that there's no purpose for more cores than four is closed-minded and outright false. To each their own, lol.

Nice, Bill. What application(s) were using it primarily?

ManBearPig

stalinx20

ManBearPig

stalinx20
with ~20 of them sitting idling.

.....still trolling this thread 

Yep, have a good day. You all know I'm right, but that doesn't matter, "it's the amount of cores that matter". Keep living that dream guys, enjoy your 22+ cores.

Keep dreaming and enjoy your 2 core i3 lol

I don't have an I3 . That was a good one, though. Bill1024 is obviously not part of the "consumer based crowd", and that is why he blew right passed my point; and has every reason to consider a 22 core processor. Good Job Bill. We can blow things out of proportion all day which a lot of you seem to be doing; and not staying on the main point at hand. So, carry on.

Lots of people, including regular consumers like I do video processing. That efficiently uses more than four cores if you have them. Photoshop panorama stitching also uses cores efficiently. I can go on...

Getting back to your point, the type of CPUs as in the OP aren't targeted towards regular consumers. Are there applications that efficiently use more than four cores for regular consumers? Yes of course. Are there many CPUs with more than four cores for regular consumers? Typically 4 to 8 cores (4 core i7 and 8-core AMD counterparts). The 6 core, 12 thread Intel's and similar AMD counterparts are typically for people who actually need them for more specialized workloads.

So, regular consumers without the higher end requirement can easily get by with two to four cores or eight core cheaper AMDs. There is software for those types of users who can take advantage of the cores should one have them.

Gaming won't necessarily be one of them but if the game is designed to be optimized with multi-core cores and effectively work with the GPU, the user will benefit. A game doesn't necessarily need to max out the CPU to effectively make use of the multiple cores. After all, if it shares its workload efficiently, it's still doing its job well.

NazcaC2
 video processing. That efficiently uses more than four cores if you have them. Photoshop panorama stitching also uses cores efficiently. I can go on...
Yes, those apps use more than 4 cores sufficiently because they're made that way; I do not find video processing applications fit in the consumer based apps. If you do, then you can guarantee certain video processing apps that are consumer based, the requirements will state quad core on the recommended specs, not 6-8 cores.
Getting back to your point, the type of CPUs as in the OP aren't targeted towards regular consumers EXACTLY what I was saying from the very beginning , this particular processor is in no way made for a consumer.. Are there applications that efficiently use more than four cores for regular consumers? Yes of course, but they will be more expensive, at which they wouldn't really be considered consumer rated. it really depends on what you consider consumer rated. To me it's the price of the app. That's mainly what it boils down to. Are there many CPUs with more than four cores for regular consumers? Typically 4 to 8 cores (4 core i7 and 8-core AMD counterparts). The 6 core, 12 thread Intel's and similar AMD counterparts are typically for people who actually need them for more specialized workloads. I Agree with that.

So, regular consumers without the higher end requirement can easily get by with two to four cores or eight core cheaper AMDs. There is software for those types of users who can take advantage of the cores should one have them.

Gaming won't necessarily be one of them but if the game is designed to be optimized with multi-core cores and effectively work with the GPU, the user will benefit. A game doesn't necessarily need to max out the CPU to effectively make use of the multiple cores. After all, if it shares its workload efficiently, it's still doing its job well. Don't get me wrong, I would really like to see games utilize 6-8 cores better than what they currently "doing". If you look at 90% of the games out there, they recommend I7's 3770 or 4770, which are 4 core procs.

stalinx20
So, what's next? Are they going to release a 30 core processor, just keep on stacking more cores on top of each other? Meanwhile, mankind hasn't even able to develop programs that can use a quad core "efficiently" enough, for the consumer level. Arguable, but it's true. It's almost becoming a joke the way they're releasing these CPUs. Why can't they have a core able to do 4 jobs at once, or 8 jobs at "ludicrous" speed? They have "hyper-threading", but why can't they have it where each core does "more than hyper-threading"? Seriously... WTH. Again, lets' just stack more cores on top and make the consumers think they got something big...

Reading this post over again. I see what your saying. You want one core CPUs to be able to do several multitasking jobs at once. One core doing 8 jobs at once, at blazing speed.
Well there maybe several reasons, maybe because they can't do it? Maybe because one super core would be so big and produce too much heat? Maybe because it would cost too much to do it that way and it is cheaper to add extra cores. Cores work together and pass info to cores that are idle. It seems so fast and smooth.
Why not wright a letter to Intel's development center and ask them if it can be done. I would love to hear what they say. Even a phone today has 4 cores in it. Every computer today is blazing fast.
 
Have you noticed that when a programs are running with a quad core CPU you will see all 4 cores running at 25-50%, I can't say I have ever been able to get a core or two to "park"
Seems like they always split the work among cores, I am talking about programs that are supposed to be single core too. Never seen 1 core at 100% and 3 or more "parked" ever.
 

One thing with win10 and now DX12, DX12 is supposed to be able to use more cores, the more the better.
But it is up to the programmers to develop the software. I see it all the time, the programmers drag their feet
 
I am not impressed with the improvements Intel had made, they can do better.
I have Haswel, Ivybridge, sandy bridge and Westmere CPUs as well as a couple different AMD cores.
My overclocked x5660 hexcore core for core is as fast as my Haswel stock in several programs.
Rather than just raw speed, there are so many instruction sets built in, again the programmers need to step up and develop the software to take advantage. If a program could use AVX, AVX2, F16c and FMA3 and the other instructions
AVX can make a hell of a lot of difference, I have seen some of what it can do
 
We are stuck with what Intel wants to give us, with so little competition to put some fire under their butt why would they...
We are also at the mercy of the programmers to come up with better software.
 
 
 

bill1024
One thing with win10 and now DX12, DX12 is supposed to be able to use more cores, the more the better.
But it is up to the programmers to develop the software. I see it all the time, the programmers drag their feet
 
I am not impressed with the improvements Intel had made, they can do better.
I have Haswel, Ivybridge, sandy bridge and Westmere CPUs as well as a couple different AMD cores.
My overclocked x5660 hexcore core for core is as fast as my Haswel stock in several programs.
Rather than just raw speed, there are so many instruction sets built in, again the programmers need to step up and develop the software to take advantage. If a program could use AVX, AVX2, F16c and FMA3 and the other instructions
AVX can make a hell of a lot of difference, I have seen some of what it can do
 
We are stuck with what Intel wants to give us, with so little competition to put some fire under their butt why would they...
We are also at the mercy of the programmers to come up with better software.
 
 
 

I'm only hoping Intel can crack that 5.0ghz barrier while running stable without the need of watercooling and/or increased voltages; let's face it, the real test for a stable clock is the use of an air-cooler within regular voltage parameters. Silicone is clearly showings its limitations, and Intel/AMD are going to have to come up with another solution/metal (quite possibly an advanced, technological method) to overcome such speeds; even finfet sizes are starting to hesitate and show certain roadblocks, giving companies struggles to overcome the barrier. Just look at Pascal and how many issues they have had. They will have to do something soon. Only time will tell. All of us may not even see such new technology until we're all long gone.

stalinx20
No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.

Not twisting your words at all, you yourself said it.

stalinx20

ManBearPig
On topic: give me 22 cores 

with ~20 of them sitting idling. 

You said that if I had a 22 core CPU that 20 of them would be sitting idle.

It's still a monster vs a four or six core CPU.