cdawall
where the hell are my stars
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 27,680 (4.11/day)
- Location
- Houston
System Name | All the cores |
---|---|
Processor | 2990WX |
Motherboard | Asrock X399M |
Cooling | CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL |
Memory | 4x16GB G.Skill 3600 |
Video Card(s) | (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's |
Storage | 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB |
Display(s) | Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz |
Case | Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal |
Audio Device(s) | Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood |
Power Supply | Seasonic Prime 1200w |
Mouse | Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller |
Keyboard | Keychron K8 |
Software | W10P |
Sure I get it. But I disagree with it is all. Quad cores have been at the high end of the mainstream for a decade now, and while there are few reasons for it to move to more cores ... it would still be nice, and we're getting there performance-wise. The next gen from Intel should be (on desktop) like now, but bumped up a step. IE 2C/4T for Celeron/Pentium (maybe apart from the €30 CPU's), 4C/4T for i3's and 4C/8T for i5s and 6C/12T (and maybe even 8C/16T Xeon parts for mainstream) for i7's. But then they'd step on their own toes and their precious market segmentation. I just like the idea to start a build with a Celeron and end up with a sixteen thread monster.
Why? Is there some mystical software that an average user has that actually needs more than a 4C/8T?