Why is having 6+ cores so comfy?

browsing the internet while waiting for something to render

i edit videos and music and having an 8 core processor speeds up rendering time for videos by a lot, which would likely take a week or more on a 2 core processor, or 5-6 days on a 4 core processor

>ryzen above intel

kill kys yourself

plus this is also very nice. on the old 4 core processor I used to use, my computer couldn't be used at all during the rendering time, but when I got a new computer with an 8 core processor, I'm actually able to use it while rendering in the background

spotted the assblasted corelet.

compiling a custom linux kernel

>6-8 cores is the perfect amount!
>Doesn't even matter what you use for computer for, even if you use it just for emails or just for calculating the 7 quintillonth digit of pi, 6-8 cores is the perfect amount!
Different people have different needs, retards

>not having 22c/88t, or at least 8c/32t

Women aren't interested in men with less than 16 threads anymore.

updating their USE flags and having to rebuild everything

6c/12t is the new minimum

Amount of cores doesn't mean shit.
An intel i7 with 4 cores easily out performs an AMD processor with 8 cores, because AMD has shit performance per core.

fuck off brian, we’re still not going to buy your obsolete housefire cpus

>be intelfag
>cpu at full work beating AMD while gayming
>open calculator
>house explodes

Attached: 1500633799763.png (1002x1480, 1.25M)

You need to get with the times grandpa

I will.

at least you might save a bit on your winter heating costs

looks like someone was in the coma for 7 years

I'll save a lot all around.

Attached: XPS 8700.png (608x865, 375K)

$150
wow

what does it mean for a single core to have multiple threads?

if you have two threads of execution, doesn't that imply you have two cores? how can you have two threads on a single core?

They share resources; they aren't completely independent and can be blocked if too many threads are trying to use the same things.

logical cores share certain parts of 1 physical core while having some separate units

Imagine that their are two queues (threads) taking turns using your waifus holes (the execution units).

Because you are a mindless consumer who does nothing productive with your PC so you brag about it on a Botswana basket weaving board.
Now why don't you fuck off back to rebbit and take your CPU with you faggot.

this thread is so amazing wow
its like a circus

What about 6c/6t

This is what I was thinking.
My 8600k @ 4.7 must fit in there ?

This dude is right. Clock speed/ipc matters to. FX Sucked at this. Phenom II beat FX's in single core ipc. Guess what a lot of older games are? Single core. So if you got an FX you got fucked when you tried to play your single core games. Meanwhile those with Phenom II's just went on enjoying the good life. No compromises, it's everything or nothing. If you can't enjoy your games and do your other shit then really what's the point in upgrading? But there is one thing FX is good at; Server/Workstation only duty.

Definitely 4c/4t, though they still have their use as does 2c/4t a bit. But, 4c/8t is still generally acceptable.

I'm still on a 4/4 and feel fine though a few cpu hungry games have show its limits (at least without lowering settings). Holding off for a year or two to see how the current core wars develops before making my decision. Don't do anything that justifies tons of cores atm.

>tfw have two CPUs
>tfw still a corelet

Attached: Picture 2.png (592x321, 117K)

I still use only 4 Core cpu in my main rig. Don't really do anything to push all cores except occasional video encode. Games I play are all older single core based titles.

Yeah same. My tastes are pretty broad so I'm often playing games that don't demand much or emus which like single cores for the most part and I don't mind lowering settings for the most part. I can definitely see why people who do pro work could benefit from more corez but the most I do is handbrake a vid now and then. Heck. I built a htpc with a spare I3 3220 and it does well enough for light gaming and emulation. More is better but I feel there's a lot of hypberole on Jow Forums and /v/ regarding cores.

how often do you use more than 4 unless you do so deliberately?

not corelet...
but threadLet

1 core ought to be enough for anybody

Attached: pcgamer.jpg (674x532, 48K)

Everything was so smooth, 10 years of comfy quad core supremacy and then amd had to screw shit up. This wasnt part of the plan

Attached: 1523750368130.jpg (882x758, 324K)

youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3w9HKuTL8

Are you jelly OP

Attached: 2018-04-22-052435_1024x768_scrot.png (1024x768, 246K)

oy vey!

6c/6t can still stutter pretty bad in games in lock in windows. Sometimes the smoothness is worse than 4c/8t.

Attached: dunce59.png (1300x2000, 251K)

>half a decade ago
>deciding if I want to buy E8400 (2c/2t at 3ghz!) or the Q6600 (4c/4t measly 2.4 ghz)
>figure the tried and true MHz is the important factor
>dies a quick death
>Jow Forumsentlemen still rollin their q6600 years after I've moved on
>still jealous of core hoarders
>finally get cheap 1700 ryzen when released
>never again will I fall for the mhz meme

I'll never get less than 8 cores. in a few years I'll never get less than 12.

Attached: gbtet.jpg (480x360, 19K)

Attached: 1479618237612.png (522x593, 325K)

holy shit this post.

Attached: retard.png (300x300, 14K)

Must suck to pull out the retarded reaction images only to be shown you're the retard yourself.

Like really, how retarded can you be? It's not like this was hard to find. Just one of the first results for "8400 7700k frametimes". And anyone with some technical knowledge would understand why this might be without even needing the test results.
You're probably too retarded to understand a frametime graph, and will just stay a retard-calling-others-retarded forever, but whatever.

Attached: Frametimes8400.jpg (977x632, 203K)

do that same graph with a higher clocked 8600.

>retarded reaction images
>shown you're the retard yourself
>how retarded can you be
>"8400 7700k frametimes"
>anyone with some technical knowledge would understand why this might be
>You're probably too retarded
>a frametime graph
>just stay a retard-calling-others-retarded forever

getting that fucking ass-mad over your baseded out childrens games

Attached: trump0001.jpg (500x700, 215K)

>cherry picked as fuck.
kek. You couldn't read it initially and had to delete after posting.
You just exposed more of how retarded you are.

Nice goalposts, but clock speed doesn't cause those spikes. Less threads, sometimes getting used by background processes, and throttling causes them though it's not throttling in this case.

4c/4t is not enough in some newer games, like the new Assassin's Creeds stutters like fucking crazy. 6c/6t is not much better to the point that 4c/8t is smoother even if the averages are sometimes lower. 6c/12t is the minimum you want for a consistently smooth experience.
But if you're an actual retard, you probably have shit eyes and can't see the difference. For any normal person who has a working pair eyes and brain, smooth 80+fps is going to look better than pinging up and down from 90fps to under 60fps for fractions of a second.
And obviously the general application and multitasking performance is far worse with less threads.

I won't bother with arguing with you further. It was already clear from the start that you are too retarded to bother educating, and I've only posted for others benefit and not yours.

Attached: 1502055422354.png (672x794, 350K)

You've given no substantial evidence to prove that 4 extra threads are better than 2 extra physical cores.
One screen shot
one game review
done by one tester
of a lower spec cpu (i5 vs i7)

>8c 4m not on the chart

Attached: 1491349230554.jpg (653x726, 115K)

4 Core are pretty good for me. I mostly watch TV shows and Moon shows so it doesn't bother me much. Though I'll probably buy a newer one once AMD or Intel releases their new lines of processors.

>mfw 32c/64t

Attached: comfy2.jpg (409x409, 45K)

Gentoo

>half a decade ago
>2013
>buying a dualcore without ht because clocks
>on one of the last unlocked intel platforms
Not even being a poorfag excuses your idiocy.

A custom one or just one you configured?... the latter takes little to no time and is done rarely not day to day

The new assassin's Creed is a pile of dog shit, and even x99 was having trouble running that game on launch.
For what it's worth, I run 6600k at 4.5ghz on a 144hz monitor. Overwatch usually is stutter free, Fallout 4 seems to become retarded every time it loads new assets. Far Cry 5 is open world and somehow I don't feel much stutter. All depends on the game I guess.
Also I'm in upgrading to 7nm zen if it can do 4.7 all cores 3600x.

>tfw only bentium g3258 at 4.4GHz

>ITT : intelfags using FXfags as point
>In 2018

I wonder who getting stuck in the past now

Compilation, video/photo editing, rendering, machine learning (not for NN ofc), heavy programing when you have multiple heavy IDEs+browsers+VMs+ dbs open. Even for gaymers - streaming/gaming.

using gnome without lag

Tfw 16c/32t is enough to render 1080p video and still have power left over.

ebyn

It's not there because modules are worse setup than an actual dual core.

i just have one core :(

Because of how bloated software is.

every time i click “build” in visual studio

2c/4t is still a good entry point if you need to build on the cheap and you're starting out with a 1050 ti. Modern Pentiums are cheap as shit and punch well above their price point.

4c is just a retarded, overpriced stepping stone to 6c now.

>bought 7700K at release
>literally 3 months later Intel gets KEKD by AMD and is forced to increase core count
JUST

Attached: 1499978267224.jpg (691x771, 112K)

Why does the graphics card have a primary influence on whether starting with a particular CPU is smart? Are you narrowly focused on video games? If so, you may be new here - is our sister board for video-game related discussion.

Attached: URY8kte.jpg (683x1024, 134K)

2200g > shit > any Pentium

8700k and 1600 run the new Assassin's Creed fine.
HMMM.
>Overwatch
Yes that's a well optimized "esports" game made to run on low spec computers.
>Fallout 4
Is an old Bethesda game.

A 2c/4t Pentium can bottleneck the 1050Ti in loads of games. Didn't Gamer's Nexus test show that you're actually better off with an RX560 due to the lower driver overhead, even if the RX560 doesn't perform as well as the 1050Ti in many older games?

Also, most people do more than use their PC as a glorified games console whereas benchmarkers run nothing in the background and disable most Windows services.

So i know you're baiting but i'll bite, anyone owning a PC to use (rather than out of habit/culture) will use 6 cores for almost every task individually, and if they don't, their multi-tasking operating system will schedule multiple processes at once and lower the clockspeed on individual cores as necessary, saving power and thus heat, with the knock-on benefits that has.

Hey dude, looks like you're posting from 2014, how is this possible?

Attached: d59_haha.jpg (600x431, 49K)

>tfw 6600k & 1080ti

Because when you can't have a six-pack or even a 6 gf you'll grab at whatever six is left?

Gotta feel pretty bad fucking over yourself that hard with a shitty processor

I may or may not be the average Jow Forums user but working on in my final uni project is so much more comfy on ryzen than on a dual core macbook pro. Compilation times are literally 6 times faster.

Feels good huh

2500k here for 7 odd years

About to get a ryzen 2700 and enjoy another decade of cpu performance

i5-2500 brethern here and I'm waiting for nextgen AMD CPUs.

but games barely benefit from more cores

>>>r/intel

not having multithreading in the current year is just a shame

it's true

Denuvo will fix it.
AC: origins, 6 threads are fully loaded wile staring at the wall.

>SPARC for anything other than database and Java workloads