stalinx20

Xavier Zepherious

stalinx20

ManBearPig

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.

Exactly. You all are missing my point out of this whole entire thread; Why are they only stacking more cores on top and not allowing cores to take on more than 2 commands at once? Why not have Hyperthreading which does 4 commands at once for each core? Why can't they make a single core stronger than what it currently is? Why can't they make the processors run faster passed 5.0ghz on standard cooling? Why why why. No, I mean for real, that's no joke. Yes, most of those cores will sit idling for the things you do MBP. But by all means, we can continue arguing about it if you'd like, I know for a fact you're not into heavy CAD or even Video Editing, don't even deny it. You'd waste your money, and a lot of it. But that's ok right? YOu get to tell everybody you have a 22-core proc. Good for you. I still rest my case.

each core doing 4 commands at once - then it wouldn't be 4 core  or the instruction set would be kinda complex
 
what you want are instruction pipelines to each core and that adds chip complexity and heat as well - so slower chips (but better utilized if the OS is made to handle it)
currently intel uses a 14 stage pipeline for each core
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/general-programming/a-journey-through-the-cpu-pipeline-r3115 
 
 
if you want better performance look at M$ for software design - bad OS design leads to poor utilization of the current chips we have now
M$ 6,7 or 10 is not a symetrical  OS
 
and again i will remind you this
Heat and leakage is the problem to most chips so there is speed barrier we are hitting
the closer you get the traces/circuits together in the chip - the traces act like capacitors and you have leakage - power jumping circuits - causing heat 
let alone the imperfections in the etching/fab process that makes the traces rough/imperfect-(closer together) in some spots leading to further leaking or arching
and pushing more power to circuits(to have higher clocks) only lends to more leakage and arching and more heat
 
then add in circuit and chip communication latency - and more transistors complexity doesn't mean more speed
try reading VSLI design
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gdRStcYgf2oC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=chip+circuit+latency&source=bl&ots=MJDOazZdXM&sig=FBRNJ9OwrXbeyhFdXjZQj8qbWv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM_NKeyLzQAhVpq1QKHcvYBTc4ChDoAQhKMAc#v=onepage&q=chip%20circuit%20latency&f=false
 
 
and we keep pushing the circuits closer together - hence we have less room to push the voltage - and less overclocking room
shrinking doesn't necessarily improve speed
 
what we need is better bandwidth(memory - on chip and onboard)
and better core utilization - and that means optimization at the OS level you can have all the speed in the world but if the software is not designed for multiple cores it will use fewer cores
we see that with some games only using 2 core some only 1 core and some using as many as they can
and your are still at mercy of the OS which doesn't assign cores well either specially M$ - linux is better
 
more cores are better in my opinion - AV software is getting big and cpu intensive
you want to protect you system 24/7 even while gaming that takes cpu cores and you still need cpu core for the OS and background tasks at the same time - AND you want to game too??
more is better
 
like compresssing a video file in DivX and runing AV software and gaming simultaneouesly - that be nice

You're not thinking outside the box. Obviously what i'm talking about - we just don't have it in this modern age. I highly doubt Intel will even hit a nick on it; I won't hold my breath. They're milking the production with the current processors and getting people to buy them. It's all about money. "each core doing 4 commands at once", yes, only 'slowing down' because Intel can't come up with anything quite advanced because we have hit a brick wall with technology. Silicone is slowly dying - scratch that; it is dying. You can deny this, but you know I'm right. Silicone will die.

Why don't you invent it for them if that is what you want.
You are barking up the wrong tree. No one here can make it happen, we do not know why they can't do it.
Ask them and let us know what they tell you.
Why keep going on when no one here can answer your questions.
I showed you that there are people, hundreds of thousands of us that can load up 32 cores 24/7
But you say we do not count.. go figure.
Why don't make a battery that will power my flashlight for 5 years with just one charge?
Why not make a water heater that lasts 10 years after the warranty expires?
 

bill1024

stalinx20

Xavier Zepherious

stalinx20

ManBearPig

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.

Exactly. You all are missing my point out of this whole entire thread; Why are they only stacking more cores on top and not allowing cores to take on more than 2 commands at once? Why not have Hyperthreading which does 4 commands at once for each core? Why can't they make a single core stronger than what it currently is? Why can't they make the processors run faster passed 5.0ghz on standard cooling? Why why why. No, I mean for real, that's no joke. Yes, most of those cores will sit idling for the things you do MBP. But by all means, we can continue arguing about it if you'd like, I know for a fact you're not into heavy CAD or even Video Editing, don't even deny it. You'd waste your money, and a lot of it. But that's ok right? YOu get to tell everybody you have a 22-core proc. Good for you. I still rest my case.

each core doing 4 commands at once - then it wouldn't be 4 core  or the instruction set would be kinda complex
 
what you want are instruction pipelines to each core and that adds chip complexity and heat as well - so slower chips (but better utilized if the OS is made to handle it)
currently intel uses a 14 stage pipeline for each core
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/general-programming/a-journey-through-the-cpu-pipeline-r3115 
 
 
if you want better performance look at M$ for software design - bad OS design leads to poor utilization of the current chips we have now
M$ 6,7 or 10 is not a symetrical  OS
 
and again i will remind you this
Heat and leakage is the problem to most chips so there is speed barrier we are hitting
the closer you get the traces/circuits together in the chip - the traces act like capacitors and you have leakage - power jumping circuits - causing heat 
let alone the imperfections in the etching/fab process that makes the traces rough/imperfect-(closer together) in some spots leading to further leaking or arching
and pushing more power to circuits(to have higher clocks) only lends to more leakage and arching and more heat
 
then add in circuit and chip communication latency - and more transistors complexity doesn't mean more speed
try reading VSLI design
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gdRStcYgf2oC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=chip+circuit+latency&source=bl&ots=MJDOazZdXM&sig=FBRNJ9OwrXbeyhFdXjZQj8qbWv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM_NKeyLzQAhVpq1QKHcvYBTc4ChDoAQhKMAc#v=onepage&q=chip%20circuit%20latency&f=false
 
 
and we keep pushing the circuits closer together - hence we have less room to push the voltage - and less overclocking room
shrinking doesn't necessarily improve speed
 
what we need is better bandwidth(memory - on chip and onboard)
and better core utilization - and that means optimization at the OS level you can have all the speed in the world but if the software is not designed for multiple cores it will use fewer cores
we see that with some games only using 2 core some only 1 core and some using as many as they can
and your are still at mercy of the OS which doesn't assign cores well either specially M$ - linux is better
 
more cores are better in my opinion - AV software is getting big and cpu intensive
you want to protect you system 24/7 even while gaming that takes cpu cores and you still need cpu core for the OS and background tasks at the same time - AND you want to game too??
more is better
 
like compresssing a video file in DivX and runing AV software and gaming simultaneouesly - that be nice

You're not thinking outside the box. Obviously what i'm talking about - we just don't have it in this modern age. I highly doubt Intel will even hit a nick on it; I won't hold my breath. They're milking the production with the current processors and getting people to buy them. It's all about money. "each core doing 4 commands at once", yes, only 'slowing down' because Intel can't come up with anything quite advanced because we have hit a brick wall with technology. Silicone is slowly dying - scratch that; it is dying. You can deny this, but you know I'm right. Silicone will die.

Why don't you invent it for them if that is what you want.
You are barking up the wrong tree. No one here can make it happen, we do not know why they can't do it.
Ask them and let us know what they tell you.
Why keep going on when no one here can answer your questions.
I showed you that there are people, hundreds of thousands of us that can load up 32 cores 24/7
But you say we do not count.. go figure.
Why don't make a battery that will power my flashlight for 5 years with just one charge?
Why not make a water heater that lasts 10 years after the warranty expires?
 

What the hell are you talking about "you don't count"? did your feelings get hurt all of a sudden? I never stated that, nor what I have any reason to say that. Is this some sort of popularity contest with y'all? Anyway... Now you're going off the deep end. First off, are you going to ask me if I can change the sky red? Second, You don't fit in the category "regular consumer", which is something I already stated. "Hundreds of thousands of people"? Out of 180 million+ people, alone, in the U.S.... Ya that's what I thought. Keep talking. Again, this proc doesn't fit your average consumer.

I am a regular consumer and there are hundreds of thousands of people who fold and crunch work units.
But you keep saying I am not. You are saying they are not regular consumers. just because you can't see a need for it.
These processors are geared more to people and business that need multi-core processing power.
There are many types of people that could use these processors. Small businesses that have several workers that have to access data on a central server. People at home that may want to fold and crunch and do some video editing at the same time.
They are regular consumers too. Gamers are not the only people who use computers.
Yes grandma who checks her email and reads some news does not need it.
You keep asking why why why. Why not make a single core 5ghz that can do the work of a hexcore. Then you keep arguing about it.
You want something they do not make, or can't make. Why do you keep going on about it?
Why not write a letter to Intel and ask them? Really, do it.
By the way, there are 330 million in the USA not 180 million.
 
You can go ahead and come on back with more, go ahead I will let you have the last word. Go for it.

bill1024
I am a regular consumer and there are hundreds of thousands of people who fold and crunch work units.
But you keep saying I am not. You are saying they are not regular consumers. just because you can't see a need for it.
These processors are geared more to people and business that need multi-core processing power.
There are many types of people that could use these processors. Small businesses that have several workers that have to access data on a central server. People at home that may want to fold and crunch and do some video editing at the same time.
They are regular consumers too. Gamers are not the only people who use computers.
Yes grandma who checks her email and reads some news does not need it.
You keep asking why why why. Why not make a single core 5ghz that can do the work of a hexcore. Then you keep arguing about it.
You want something they do not make, or can't make. Why do you keep going on about it?
Why not write a letter to Intel and ask them? Really, do it.
By the way, there are 330 million in the USA not 180 million.
 
You can go ahead and come on back with more, go ahead I will let you have the last word. Go for it.

TL;DR

Again, you're making these numbers as if you are the only ones on the planet... You're not, and that is why this processor is not designed for consumer based citizens. Why are you arguing with this fact? You keep repeating my statement about this processor fitting for other people's needs, and that's what bcavnaugh said. And guess what? I agree with you! We all know you don't fit the particular consumer based? And I do not care. Nobody cares.
I think we are in an agreement about this processor, and you have no justification to argue about other points that I brought up that we/companies/Intel/AMD have not & cannot create such technology yet. Agreed & confirmed. I already stated that we probably won't see it until we're all blue in the face. Again, why are you arguing? So, you crunch and fold. Good for you - I guess this processor is perfect for you. 

Just forget it bill, some people will never get it. It's not worth the time.

For someone who owns no EVGA Products seems to have a lot of Pointless or Missed My Point Posts here.

stalinx20
I know very well who you are and what you're capable; you can disagree all you want, but I know.. So you have an 8thread I7... Just say 4 core, seriously, and quit pretending that you know so much because you built your PC. That's the biggest joke with people, because they think because they built a PC, everybody knows about PCs. Quit the BS, lol. Battlefield 4 will run perfectly fine on an i3, proven fact. Your point you're trying to make (that's my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong) is you really think this 22core is going to make battlefield 4 run even better, and I hope that's not what you're trying to make, games will serve no purpose with this processor. That, again, is my point I was trying to make.

Oh wow, this guy is actually pretending to know a random person on the internet that he has never seen/met or even talked with hahahahahahahaha.  I'm sorry, but that is really funny.  Some people are just that delusional I guess.
 
And where have I pretended to know so much? That has been you this whole time lol.  I never said that this CPU would make BF4 run better, not once.  I was merely saying that BF4 uses MORE than 2 threads, unlike what you think/say.  You for some odd reason think that there are no games/applications that can use more than 2.  I was just proving you wrong (which isn't hard).  There's also folding@home which a lot of people do.  I also love how I mentioned that BF4 uses all 8 threads of my CPU, you tell me to only talk about cores; even though earlier in the thread you were wanting "more than hyper-threading", lol make up your mind.
 

stalinx20
Out of 180 million+ people, alone, in the U.S.... Ya that's what I thought. Keep talking.

 He talks so confident, yet actually knows nothing
Please keep talking like you know everything because it's funny.  180 million people in the US? (last time we had only 180 million was in 1960 lol)

I would direct you to read this
https://books.google.ca/books?id=83eskZJmRoMC&pg=PT112&lpg=PT112&dq=exotic+materials+Intel&source=bl&ots=vZwQmqHxoT&sig=B3tHNK42vcPQ-VXiuaN7W2uqbHo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1uvDQzb_QAhUB8mMKHbeIB4UQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=exotic%20materials%20Intel&f=false 
 
there isn't gonna be any better improvement in the near future other than lower power and more cores
 
anything futuristic using new exotic techniques will drive up the price like going from a $300 to a $3k cpu and that will be reserved for business at first