- Nov 20, 2009
- 10,051
- 2,577
- 136
Yes, but you can see it as 3/6 CPU. But if you are drunk,.....................well.
View attachment 27828
Well, AMD sold it a 6 cores, so that is how I would consider it. I would draw the line though when they tried to sum up the cpu and gpu and advertise their APUs as "compute cores".
We've only been hearing the same hopes for 6.5 years: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/20/directx-12/ Over 10 years if you don't limit the discussion to just DX12.I'm anticipating that once 16 high performance threads becomes the standard on consoles as opposed to the 8 anemic threads consoles have now, combined with Vulkan/DX12, we'll see much better thread utilitization in games.
Four people said they had 32 or more cores? Please explain this. Why in personal at home computing would you do this?
You could have put outlandish eyebrows on it, too. Called it the Dune machine.
We've only been hearing the same hopes for 6.5 years: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/20/directx-12/ Over 10 years if you don't limit the discussion to just DX12.
Fact is games don't scale that well with CPU cores. They scale much better with GPU processing. The common (but admittedly can be taken as derogatory) phrase is "9 women can't make a baby in one month." This also applies to much of gaming. Sure, some parts of some games really like more CPU cores. But, we are at the point of diminishing returns for CPU cores and most gaming.
If by some miracle many new games actually can take full advantage of new cores, remember, game developers design for the lowest common denominator. That might be 4 core desktops for a couple more years (See the poll answers above). If they ignore desktop gamers, the XBox Series X doesn't give all 8 cores to the game either. So game developers would at max go for 7 cores in their games.
I do distributed computing. I research cancer and covid-19. I am contributor number 54 at Rosetta@home which has now produced a cure for Covid-19, but only in the lab as of yet. But its been proven to kill it, just not available for human use yet.Four people said they had 32 or more cores? Please explain this. Why in personal at home computing would you do this?
I think basically you are correct. However, the consoles will probably run at a considerably slower clock speed than desktop cpus, especially when the desktops are overclocked. So it will be a balancing act between the faster clock speed of the desktop cpu and the greater efficiency of the console. As far as DX12, isnt it supposed to lower the burden on the cpu?Have we had high performance 8 core/16 thread consoles for the last 6.5 years? That's my point. We have seen games move towards better thread utilization with the adoption of DX12/Vulkan over the past few years. What we've been needing is a big push to really get developers to invest and design their engines around more threads, and that push is going to be the next gen consoles. If we were at the point of diminishing returns, I'm pretty sure Sony and Microsoft would have loved lower the cost of their consoles by going for less cores. But they didn't -- clearly the engineers behind the consoles see the value and potential of 8 cores/16 threads. And even taking into account the Series X/S dedicating a core to OS functions (as if PCs don't have OS overhead of their own), 7 cores/14 threads available for games is still more than 6 core/12 thread desktop CPUs.
Don't get me wrong, games will probably still be playable on (decent) 6 core/12 thread and 4 core/8 threads CPUs for a while yet. But it's just a matter of time. Try playing any modern game on a dual core CPU nowadays.
Do the organisations that run distributed computing give feedback at any point, to indicate what a given distributed computing project managed to achieve in advancing cures?I do distributed computing. I research cancer and covid-19. I am contributor number 54 at Rosetta@home which has now produced a cure for Covid-19, but only in the lab as of yet. But its been proven to kill it, just not available for human use yet.
Know of a better reason to have 600 cores working ?
Oh, and if thats not enough, I lost to cancer, I lost my bladder, prostate, my hearing and balance to cancer 2 years ago. I am hoping what I do will make life better for my kids and the world in the next generation.
I have heard from Rosetta, and Folding@home. WCG has been pretty quiet, but others may have data.Do the organisations that run distributed computing give feedback at any point, to indicate what a given distributed computing project managed to achieve in advancing cures?
Why don't you check what the "PC" abbreviation stands for?How many cores are you operating with on your PERSONAL PC at home? PC with most Cores, that is.
That big push came with the current gen having a lot but very weak cores to deal with.What we've been needing is a big push to really get developers to invest and design their engines around more threads, and that push is going to be the next gen consoles.
It stands for if you Personally need or even just want a server, 3d render farm or whatever else CPU you Can get one.Why don't you check what the "PC" abbreviation stands for?
That person doesn't even know this site.And just to add even more confusion: what if someone uses an ARM smartphone or tablet as a main PC?
Have we had high performance 8 core/16 thread consoles for the last 6.5 years? That's my point. We have seen games move towards better thread utilization with the adoption of DX12/Vulkan over the past few years. What we've been needing is a big push to really get developers to invest and design their engines around more threads, and that push is going to be the next gen consoles. If we were at the point of diminishing returns, I'm pretty sure Sony and Microsoft would have loved lower the cost of their consoles by going for less cores. But they didn't -- clearly the engineers behind the consoles see the value and potential of 8 cores/16 threads. And even taking into account the Series X/S dedicating a core to OS functions (as if PCs don't have OS overhead of their own), 7 cores/14 threads available for games is still more than 6 core/12 thread desktop CPUs.
Don't get me wrong, games will probably still be playable on (decent) 6 core/12 thread and 4 core/8 threads CPUs for a while yet. But it's just a matter of time. Try playing any modern game on a dual core CPU nowadays.
I think basically you are correct. However, the consoles will probably run at a considerably slower clock speed than desktop cpus, especially when the desktops are overclocked. So it will be a balancing act between the faster clock speed of the desktop cpu and the greater efficiency of the console. As far as DX12, isnt it supposed to lower the burden on the cpu?
Four people said they had 32 or more cores? Please explain this. Why in personal at home computing would you do this?
...?It stands for if you Personally need or even just want a server, 3d render farm or whatever else CPU you Can get one.
I'm not confusing anything. PC is a PC. Despite many definitions that exist in literature or can be made up on the go, it converges around a computer you interact with directly - with human-usable input and output.You are confusing mainstream Personal Computers with HEDT/enthusiast Personal Computers, while for mainstream 4/8 is way enough and 6cores is already stretching it for someone who enjoys messing with stuff there are no boundaries.
The fact that on this forum most people prefer (or at least consider) DIY desktops and tinkering doesn't mean some of us don't use mobile devices for most everyday personal tasks.That person doesn't even know this site.
...?
I'm not confusing anything. PC is a PC. Despite many definitions that exist in literature or can be made up on the go, it converges around a computer you interact with directly - with human-usable input and output.
A server (hardware-level) is NOT a machine you operate directly, but over a network connection.
That's it.
Workstations, HEDT and so on - are all PCs if you use them as a PC. And any computer with network interface can be used as a server, while not every server can be a PC.
Which brings me back to my initial doubts, this time with an example (not true, but pretty close):
- I have a personal 4-core desktop that I use for 1-2h a day,
- I have an 8-core smartphone that I use all day for almost all basic tasks: e-mail, browsing, news, playing music, messaging,
- I have a company 8-core laptop that I use for 8h a day - including some personal stuff if allowed (but I don't own it),
- my wife has a 6-core laptop that I don't use, but partially own it (spousal joint ownership),
- I have an 8-core console (which is not a PC, but takes over a PC role for gaming and watching movies),
- I have a 10-core server, but I only have access to 9-cores via my VMs,
- I have a 24-core VM on cloud that is not a PC, but acts as my workstation.
So - according to you - how should I answer the survey?
The fact that on this forum most people prefer (or at least consider) DIY desktops and tinkering doesn't mean some of us don't use mobile devices for most everyday personal tasks.
No one asked you to read or reply to this poll that you are obviously finding no value it. Go away and find something that makes you happy. I am not asking to make you happy, but make me happy. I was curious and I asked a question, in poll form.First of all: I really can't believe this thread turned into Bulldozer core counting discussion. Just let it die already.
Why don't you check what the "PC" abbreviation stands for?
I honestly don't know what the goal of this survey is, but you should have used a more precise question, for example:
- the most cores among computers in household,
- the most cores among computers in household used only by the person answering,
- the number of cores in the PC used the most,
- the number of cores in the PC used for the most demanding tasks.
And just to add even more confusion: what if someone uses an ARM smartphone or tablet as a main PC?
No, no we did not have 8 core consoles. I see your point. But did you even consider my point? My point was that the DX12 promise to use more cores better has has us waiting 6.5 years and yet only a few games actually have the need for the more cores. Many games just don't need more cores You could give a game developer a console with infinite cores running at a good speed on each core, and still there just isn't a need for parallel processing (aside from the obvious more GPU cores) in much of what games do.Have we had high performance 8 core/16 thread consoles for the last 6.5 years? That's my point.
From the relatives I have in the gaming business, they just don't have the time to do that investment, even if it were possible to get significant benefits. They are on strict release schedules, working 100+ hours a week, many weeks in a row. Then they are zombies on their few weeks off before the next burst of activity.We have seen games move towards better thread utilization with the adoption of DX12/Vulkan over the past few years. What we've been needing is a big push to really get developers to invest and design their engines around more threads, and that push is going to be the next gen consoles
These consoles are about more than just gaming.If we were at the point of diminishing returns, I'm pretty sure Sony and Microsoft would have loved lower the cost of their consoles by going for less cores. But they didn't -- clearly the engineers behind the consoles see the value and potential of 8 cores/16 threads.
There is a massive difference from my point of saying most games don't need 8 cores to your rebuttal of 2 cores is slow. Break the typical game down into it's elements: graphics, physics, map, character responses, enemy AI, and IO. There are 6 main functions which work quite well for 6 cores (they aren't equal in resource needs, so they often can be combined onto fewer cores by the OS without too much performance hit). Add in video streaming for a 7th if you want. The effort for the programmer to suddenly split this into 8 roughly equal tasks is massive compared to the minimal usable benefits of maybe having the map on 2 cores instead of 1.Don't get me wrong, games will probably still be playable on (decent) 6 core/12 thread and 4 core/8 threads CPUs for a while yet. But it's just a matter of time. Try playing any modern game on a dual core CPU nowadays.