Intel Unveils a Clean-slate CPU Core Architecture Codenamed "Sunny Cove"

[Vya Domus]

Think outside the TPU box. Your mom or grandma doesnt need more than a quad. Neither do the majority of users.

The point isn't that you NEED it, you don't have a choice. Manufacturers simply cannot provide big single core improvements anymore.

 

[EarthDog]

The point isn't that you NEED it, you don't have a choice. Manufacturers simply cannot provide big single core improvements anymore.

Correct. I said that as well. Which further supports what I am saying...just because they are being made, doesn't make it a need. It appeared a passage of your alluded to a point that the HW mfg making them is a sign they are needed.....

The hardware industry doesn't agree with you, the software industry also doesn't agree with you but hey nice way of perpetuating the myth that we don't need more than a dual core.

...If there wasn't a need for it they wouldn't have done it.

I must have misunderstood what that meant.

 

[Vya Domus]

It appeared a passage of your alluded to a point that the HW mfg making them is a sign they are needed.

They are needed to further the performance of CPUs. The ideea that the users need more cores doesn't even factor in.


Your mom and grandfather would have had a much shittier experience browsing the web without multiple cores on their device of choice because even browsers are multithreaded these days.

 

[EarthDog]

They are needed to further the performance of CPUs. The ideea that the users need more cores doesn't even factor in.


Your mom and grandfather would have had a much shittier experience browsing the web without multiple cores on their device of choice because even browsers are multithreaded these days.

Thank you for the clarity of your post. My context, was talking about "people's needs"... that is what you quoted of my in your response, in fact. Again I said A (people's needs), you refuted that point with B (hardware and software are there so its a need). Understand my confusion...

I even said hardware mfg are CREATING a need just by the products existing (kind of how it works if there isn't an actual need). I get that hardware needs to be out for it to succeed and take hold in the market (though oddly, this argument doesn't hold true for RTX to some, lol). But there just isn't a need for it on the user side.... which is my whooooooooooooooooooooooooole point.

My mom and grandma do just fine on quad cores...nobody is talking about annnnnnnnnnnnything less... not sure what your point is there.

 

[Vya Domus]

not sure what your point is there.

That even mundane tasks performed by users that you'd think wouldn't need more cores do in fact benefit from that and will continue to do so.

 

[EarthDog]

Yep. But that doesn't change the fact a quad core or 4c/8t CPU fine for the vast/overwhelming majority of PC users and will be for years to come for those people.

Good talk.

 

[AMX85]

Is interesting, i hope much IPC gains, is interesting too, they admiting that Skylake was is last ARK update :V


Greetings

 

[Particle]

My argument is who started with the more cores the better was intel and I stand by it and then after that intel just left at is it cause amd was not challenging intel on that, the first real quad core amd launched was in 2011. AMD tried to challenge Intel on that with the 6 cores but it was never real 6 cores, was 6 threads, real tricore. AMD is only challenging Intel with something now because they are able to.

You do not have an accurate understanding of older AMD products. Stars cores shared no execution resources whatsoever. AMD launched their first quad core in 2007 with the Phenom X4. AMD launched their first six-core in 2010 with the Phenom II X6. They launched their first eight-core in 2011. That last one, Bulldozer, shared a splittable 256-bit wide FPU between each pair of cores such that the two cores had to share it ONLY when doing 256-bit FP instructions, but everything else was duplicated. Outside of uncommon workloads that actually issued 256 bit FP instructions (video encoders and scientific applications mostly), it was 8 full non-blocking cores that just weren't very good compared to what came before it or especially compared to the competition.

Your chief mistake seems to be to conflate an inferior design and its resulting lower performance with symmetric multithreading. It was a bad argument when people made it back in 2011 and it's a worse argument now that there has been so much time during which to learn from that mistake.