Dude I ran multiple programs under DOS (well, tried to anyway) using DOS shell tricks and other nonsense. I had my awesome .mod/.st3/.mtm player in the background while logging in to my favorite BBSes, so l337.
Still not enough to keep ten cores busy, but whatever.
I like moar coars!!!
While it may be true that it's hard to write software to use more than four cores, it's not hard to run a bunch of programs that don't use more than four at the same time. It's not DOS anymore - can actually run more than one task at a time.
One task, one core. Is that asking for so much?
;-)
I do not know why people think this is a marketing. I mean, yes, the OEMs may hope they sell better but I have seen zero evidence that this so-called "marketing" actually works. It's the usual tech-press and "analysts" who float these "moar cores sell in certain part of the globe" meme. Last I've heard iPhones sell quite well in China despite having only two cores.
I suspect this push towards more cores have nothing to do with performance nor marketing, but something more asinine.
If no one cared about AnTuTu scores for marketing Intel wouldn't have so blatantly broken the benchmark (and just in time for a "third party" to publish a report about how amazing Intel SoCs are because AnTuTu)
Incidentally, if the slides have been any indication AnTuTu has been MediaTek's most cherished benchmark too.
I think the only ones who truly care about AnTuTu and these other useless benchmarks are the CPU and device manufacturers.
What about counter-evidence I exampled above? iPhones? Krait-based Snapdragons? Or Sandy Bridge v. Bulldozer? There just isn't an evidence that consumers prefer mediocre many-cores over competently designed SOCs with fewer cores, in spite of the prevailing narrative (which I believe was manufactured out of thin air).
Even running a bunch of programs, its hard to actually use more than a couple cores. You pretty much need heavy computation background programs of which there are very very few outside of content creation (rendering) or engineering. In the real world, most of those computationally intensive background programs are farmed out to compute farms anyways. So outside of server workloads, 4 cores is basically more than enough for 99.99% of all desktop users. All going to more cores does is slow down the core you are actually using.
So consumers care for more cores on smartphones but not on desktops/laptops?
Again, on mobile those extra cores means a small extra price for the SoC. The choice is between more cores or a minor cost savings.
If the choices were 4 core i7 for $250 or 8 core i7 for $270 do you think no one would care about the 8 core version?
I've heard stories otherwise where device OEMs care. That's all that really matters here.
I like moar coars!!!
While it may be true that it's hard to write software to use more than four cores, it's not hard to run a bunch of programs that don't use more than four at the same time. It's not DOS anymore - can actually run more than one task at a time.
One task, one core. Is that asking for so much?
;-)
If they could put 4 cores in the Q6600 on 65 nm, they ought to be able to put 8 cores on 14 nm! The transistor density has increased by a factor 16x or so going from 65->14 nm!Intel cores are big (much, much bigger than Cortex-A53), putting 8 or even 6 of them on a mainstream consumer chip results in a much larger and more expensive die, which is not a cheap value proposition for something most users don't benefit from. So why bother?
The current 8 core desktop CPUs are enthusiast class, not mainstream, and thus priced after that, which also is the reason they are sold in very small quantities. So not comparable to e.g. Q6600 on 65 nm.Intel already sells a class of server CPUs that are the same die as the desktop ones.. the statement basically boils down to "Intel doesn't want to sell 8 core chips because Intel doesn't want to cannibalize their 8 core desktop chips." The fact is that they DO sell 8 core chips for desktop enthusiasts, they just charge a lot of money for them, because they can.
That would be the same if they made an 8 core desktop chip that ran on the same socket that the mainstream desktop chips run on, only it'd be substantially more expensive because it'd have to absorb the costs of making yet another die for a product few people want.
Worked great I'm sure, until more than one of those programs wanted the timer interrupt.
People still need to try to keep in mind that processors that aren't being used are going to be turned off anyway. I could build a 10,000 core processor that doesn't use any more power than a quad core if those extra cores are never used.
With BIG.little we're going to see a lot of experimentation over the next few years and I think it will take some time before we see usage patterns and how specific setups function. All of these setups have their pros and cons.
If a company wants to try putting out a 10 core processor -- why not? It's only costing them on silicone budget; you're not paying extra for a phone with extra cores. If the software is build correctly, it's still going to work pretty well.
And I have the Snapdragon 800 Note 3. You'd be surprised at how often the phone uses all 4 cores and how laggy it is when I force it to 2 core mode to save battery. Any sort of multitasking, especially involving Chrome (that being the memory hog that it is) will plug in all 4 cores quite easily. If you think that quad core in your phone isn't cool, root and disable two of the cores and you'll see what it's like
+1
Yeah really, if Intel is not putting more CPU cores on the mainstream dies soon, the die area will be ridiculously small as node shrinkage continues. It's been 4 node shrinks since the last time we saw a core count increase...
iPhone 6 still uses dual core chip and probably still be dual core in 6S yet it still apparently blows away any Mediatek chip.
So what we need is more powerful and efficient cores not MOAR cores.
iPhone 6 still uses dual core chip and probably still be dual core in 6S yet it still apparently blows away any Mediatek chip.
So what we need is more powerful and efficient cores not MOAR cores.
Sure if that would be possible, it would be preferred. But in reality inreasing ST performance has proven to be ever more difficult.
Especially on desktop where we're getting the yearly 6-7% increase, which is ridicolously low. On mobile we're srarting too hit the ST performance wall too. That's why increasing core count and MT performance is the only realistic way to improve performance in any meaningful way.