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.

stalinx20
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.

Why did you buy more than 2 cores though?  By your logic more than 2 is a waste as cores would be sitting idle not doing anything.  So why buy more than an i3 if you believe anything above 2 cores isn't being used?  Seems like a waste of money if you believe that.

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.

ManBearPig

stalinx20
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.

Why did you buy more than 2 cores though?  By your logic more than 2 is a waste as cores would be sitting idle not doing anything.  So why buy more than an i3 if you believe anything above 2 cores isn't being used?  Seems like a waste of money if you believe that.

No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.
 
I have an i7 ivybridge, 4 core.

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

ManBearPig

stalinx20
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.

Why did you buy more than 2 cores though?  By your logic more than 2 is a waste as cores would be sitting idle not doing anything.  So why buy more than an i3 if you believe anything above 2 cores isn't being used?  Seems like a waste of money if you believe that.

No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.
 
I have an i7 ivybridge, 4 core.

Well you say you want faster cores and not more cores. You have a CPU a few generations old, there are newer faster CPUs out there you can go buy.
So what are you waiting for? Or do you just want to complain?
 

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.
 

bill1024

stalinx20

ManBearPig

stalinx20
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.

Why did you buy more than 2 cores though?  By your logic more than 2 is a waste as cores would be sitting idle not doing anything.  So why buy more than an i3 if you believe anything above 2 cores isn't being used?  Seems like a waste of money if you believe that.

No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.
 
I have an i7 ivybridge, 4 core.

Well you say you want faster cores and not more cores. You have a CPU a few generations old, there are newer faster CPUs out there you can go buy.
So what are you waiting for? Or do you just want to complain?
 

What do you mean faster? 4.3? That's a typical speed now these days. slap an air cooler on an overclocked proc at  5.0ghz without it breaking, and then we'll talk.
 
Since you're going in that direction, I'll go ahead and throw this at you. 26% is not that big of a jump, is it....? http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700K/1675vs3502
 
And, let's not stop there, if you're going to be adding the 6900K as a suggestion (yes I seen comparisons), before you do that, look at the comparisons for benchmarks and what the comparisons are with that. Again, not worth it for a 10fps gain.

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.
 
 
 

gawd to be able to afford a 22c processor and have that thing running....*drools*....my small media server is my first step into the whole server business.  Work made me an involuntary DBA just because I knew the medical/user side of what the server was doing so been learning from the user end first LOL.  Started with windows server and now i'm learning how to play with linus so i can change out the OS.  I pretty let it crunch with WCG whenever plex isn't encoding something...