Reply to post: But ... I don't want more cores.

Monday: Intel touts 28-core desktop CPU. Tuesday: AMD turns Threadripper up to 32

Nimby
Facepalm

But ... I don't want more cores.

These days, I try to build silent PCs. I'm tired of my desk sounding like an airport with planes taking off every few minutes. I need to rock out to the rhythmic beats of my clackity-clacking mechanical keyboard. My priorities are electrical input, thermal output, and PCIe lanes first, GHz second, number of cores last. Which means that right now, both AMD and Intel have serious issues preventing me from having a preference.

This whole number of cores race is like the stupid GHz race of years past. In the end, no one wins because CPUs get "optimized" into becoming their own bottlenecks.

And whatever happened to adding more execution units and/or making complex executions require fewer cycles? Who cares about the number of sleeping cores and unused cycles you have?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon