8 core CPU about to become the new standard

>8 core CPU about to become the new standard
>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
>even in "multi threaded programs" the majority of instructions are single threaded

Congratulations "enthusiasts", you fell for the megapixel race 2.0, and we're all worse off for it.

Attached: ddddaaaaaaaa.jpg (4500x2930, 1.34M)

but muh gaymes

>8 core CPU about to become the new standard
neat
>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
retarded statement but I wouldn't care even if it meant something
>even in "multi threaded programs" the majority of instructions are single threaded
either you know nothing about how computers works or you have the worst writing skills on Jow Forums

There are virtually no games that use more than 4 threads.

Attached: Capture.jpg (875x665, 73K)

I can garuntee you that all modern 'gaymenginexD' use a threadpool to load levels

b-but muh smooth multitasking placebo.

that's a great defense when you're incapable of forming a comprehensible argument yourself.

Attached: 05b65-richard_stallman_by_anders_brenna_01.jpg (1600x1067, 162K)

Basically any instruction of a program executed on a cpu is single threaded.

If your statement is retarded the answer isn't required to be good.

is my i7 8700 an 8 core CPU?

>tfw i5 8600k
>tfw 6 strong cores at 4.8ghz without
hyper-thread meme

>Basically any instruction of a program executed on a cpu is single threaded.
what are you trying to say.

>unable to discuss with stupid people without pointing out their stupidity
Imagine being this full of yourself

>>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
>browsers
>the hundreds of programs that comprise your operating system

Jow Forums is just embarresing now

Loading levels is almost never CPU limited m8.
Tab out to task manager next time you load a level.

non-parallelized then if you wanna get hooked up on words. I have to keep it simple since I'm talking to "muh cores" people

gqrx which is an sdr app that builds and runs on linux and freebsd uses all 8 cores

why are you not using a 32 bit pc with a single core CPU? and only 64 gigs ram

>browsers
are obviously not the majority of programs. Also any single tab is generally limited to one thread unless it's playing video, webGL or something like that. That's why they get stuck at 25/13% when you load a site with 100 ads
>the hundreds of programs that comprise your operating system
generally don't even use 4 threads

DEAR GOD THE FUCKING STATE OF Jow Forums

what does any of that have to do with the OP?

I buy cpu with big number of cores to compensate my tiny peepee.

it's 3 am so I guess that means that europeans are annoying people that don't actually know how computers work

...

> My work loads don't use more than 4 threads so nobody else's does

/thread
Poozen is worthless.

>>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet

thats why at idle I have 185 processes using 2430 threads.

>average is 13 threads per process

I just spelled it out for you, you absolute imbecile.

Sorry I can’t hear your bitching over my rendering that’s using all my 32 cores are 100%

what uses 8 cores / threads or even more possibly?

-graphics rendering
it will use all available cores, no matter how many there are, if the rendered image can be cut into several smaller pieces so they can be rendered separately from each other and then finally connected to form one large image

-some video codecs can use 4-8 threads if it is possible to compress the video in several different places at once and still maintain a coherent video stream as a final result
(most codecs cannot do this)

-compiling large programs from source
(most people dont need to do this)

-you can always use winrar to open 8 instances of winrar and use each individual instance to compress a large folder (if you use HDD, it may eventually slow down too much, even before CPUs are at full work, but SSD wont get slowered)

-lastly, do all the above simultaneosuly if you have good enough gear

I cannot think of other examples

Attached: snibetisnab.jpg (771x681, 81K)

Well tell Pajeet to get off his lazy brown shit infested ass and write some goddamn computer magick that’ll utilize 8 cores!

Fuck man, don’t blame the manufacturer or the consumer, blame the shitty programmers.

Do you literally not know the difference between a thread and multithreading?
This image is from 2005

I don't see how that's relevant to the OP.

Attached: 6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776fccb8970c-pi.png (433x447, 9K)

>calls people shitty progammers
>thinks you can "just multifreditlol"

isnt it perplexing that we still dont have all that much multithreading despite first dual cpu:s appearing already 10 years ago

>dual cpu:s
10 years ago we had Q6600 already

Maybe not for "I watch youtube and play fortnite" consumers but I do see my 4 cores rendering/compiling at work quite often.

In proramming, some things can be parallelized, and some things can not.
When's summer vacation end again?

t. someone who doesn't program.

Multithreading isn't a magic trick to just make everything faster, nor is it a new tool. It's a tool that can effectively be applied to certain workloads and architectures that are friendly to multithreading. The reality is that most developers are incompetent if they're tasked with implementing any kind of multithreaded software. The reality that you see in a lot of shit systems is let's just create a bunch of threads and throw them all at the exact same piece of data with a bunch of synchronisation objects and that's it.

On top of that debugging a multithreaded program like above can be a real nightmare. Don't get me wrong, when done right multithreading is great and people try to do it all the time. It's just that most of the time people implement it horribly because they're completely ignorant of how a CPU works and how it works with main memory.

To dumb it down for you, one core can only work for one thread at a time. When we get 8 cores, we will also get 8 sets of registers, caches and algorithmic units. This will exponentially increase parallel throughput. Obviously your 2005 strawman means nothing as we are now in 2018, despite it being irrelevant in the first place.

Once you understand what thread context switching is, you would understand why 8 cores are important in 2018+. This is, of course, for people that use computers for processing a lot of information. (Not to mention how much this will help renderers)

Because you have now exposed yourself as profoundly mentally handicapped, I guess 8 cores will never suit your needs. You can dig a hole and go back to the single core CLI days if you wish.

Attached: Module10I_text%20box4[1].jpg (298x242, 31K)

Not really, they weren't even designed for multi threaded programs. The first dual CPUs were mainly marketed as "do two things at once", For which they work perfectly. Even if you're not actively doing two things, all the small system tasks can happen in the background instead of interrupting your web-browser.
Once you have your system/background in one thread, and your active shit in another, decreasing marginal returns set in really fucking fast.

I would guess less than 1% of CPU users, including professional, render things several hours a week. That does not mean that the 99% who doesn't recode anime cartons every day are "I watch youtube and play fortnite"

>your 2005 strawman means nothing
I was just restating your own argument. Also see bottom

>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
Yet somehow majority of programs show clear advantage of 6-8core cpus over identical 4core parts for both Amd and Intel.
Hmmmmmm

nope. Benchmarking in cinebench and handbrake is not "majority of programs". Especially not for consumer processors.

Post the meme with CORE0 breakdancing and rest of cores standing in the circle around him and cheering

Q6600 was technically dual core technology, you just get dual cpu dies on one chip so its quad

>8 core CPU about to become the new standard
Neat.
>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
Here's the thing, the majority of programs don't even need 4 threads, heck they don't need 2, and the ones that do need it will try to use all available cores not just 4.
>even in "multi threaded programs" the majority of instructions are single threaded
See above, using multi threading when you don't need it is actually slower than running the entire thing on a single thread, you'd only need another thread for async I/O in most cases.

You also forget that multiple single threaded programs can use separate cores instead of overworking one core and make everything slow for no reason, so more cores mean more programs you can run without problem.

>>some technological advancement
>>bold claim about how it's useless

>condescending comment about how the writer of this post is highly intelligent because he thinks like this

Every new shiny desktop app now uses electron which is basically a shiny wrapper for google chrome engine.
This like discord uses electron. So ot's pretty much a browser.

What CPU do you have?

>dual core technology
The state of Jow Forums

Multithreaded programs can be useful regarding security (for sandboxing and alike), for stability and even for power consumption if the OS/runtime has a good scheduler.
Also it makes a better use of the ressources of powerfull multicore CPUs.
And unlike people say ITT, a lot of programs that can take advantage of a good perf boost off multithreading are multithreaded already.

I'd prefer new, more powerful cores over n-core CPUs, but silicon is showing its limits and until better processes are released, I think we're in for the core race and more and more multithreading.

Explain this, brainlet

Attached: Screenshot_20180726-162037_Brave.jpg (1080x746, 293K)

Virtualization is pretty important to me.You kind of need to be able to allocate some cores to whatever it is you're doing.Then there's the very distinct possibility that I may want to actually use my computer for other things while my VM's are running in the background.The whole world doesn't revolve around twiddling joysticks and collecting points.

My own programs utilize it and that's all I care about :^)

You should consider compensating your tiny amount of balls.

>Smugly renders photorealistic turd

>and we're all worse off for it.
I don't think that's true.

Clocked higher. Duh. Not a result of moar corez, just a higher clock.

Funny how this doesn't seem to be a issue when Intel takes leaps and strides ahead with their hardware beyond modern software capabilities.
>DAMN INTEL IS REVOLUTIONARY AND ADVANCING TECH AND THE CONSUMER INTEREST TEN FOLD!!! AMD BTFOOOOO!!!

Yet when it's AMD...
OH SHIT AMD IS WASTING MONEY AND ITS ALL FOR NOTHING AHAHAHAHAHAAA WHY DO WE EVEN NEED MORE THAN 4 CORES 4 THREADS BREH!?? BTFOOOOOO!!!!

Open the gates, let the cores coming! My Haiku install is ready to rock with 64+ cores.

8350k is base 4ghz, 8400 is 4ghz turbo you retard.

>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet
Yeah, so you run 8 programs and each program gets its own core.

why are you posting the edit?

Attached: aca.jpg (777x656, 66K)

Attached: Adobe_20180726_172655.jpg (645x729, 47K)

>a single example,
do you literally not know what the word "majority" means?
>50% increase in core count AND a bigger L3 cache still only leads to 10% increase in performance
Thanks for making my own argument for me

>it's useless
Can we please stop brainletting all statements into absolutes?

All you said is true, nothing you said changes the OP.
>The whole world doesn't revolve around twiddling joysticks and collecting points.
see bottom 4 cores is perfectly fine, and of course 6/8 equally good cores is even better. But right now it seems to have turned into a simple "my number is bigger" race, not about actual performance. Which is exactly what hurt camera quality in the early 2000's

>a single example
I can't be bothered to fetch them.
Most of the benchmarks are ahead, some are more some are less.

Attached: Screenshot_20180726-162232_Brave.jpg (913x769, 185K)

That's not how it works. Most people have over 20 programs running at once. Even just an empty windows desktop does that. This has been the case for decades. See

Attached: YALLO.png (138x440, 5K)

>benchmark
see

Benchmark as a reference/test not a literal benchmark software.

Attached: 1517871699743.png (250x202, 8K)

That's what I said too dummy.
And your picture says blender 4K Render right there m8

>Blender is a professional, free and open-source 3D computer graphics software toolset used for creating animated films, visual effects, art, 3D printed models, interactive 3D applications and video games.
>useless benchmark

>>The majority of programs don't even use 4 threads yet

Here are the common programs I use in my daily life with my computer that support parallelization

>Firefox
>Chromium
>Media Player Classic
>mpv
>Xmedia Recode
>webm converter

Programs that either don't or make no difference to me to the point I have never checked
>wordpad
>paint
>gimp
>xnview
>4k stogram
>7-zip
>evince

The only one one of these that I would enjoy having better support would be gimp since it can take a few seconds to perform an iwarp effect on a high resolution photo.

Attached: hqdefault[6].jpg (480x360, 17K)

ITT: Faggots who don't do computation.

Attached: Capture.png (263x600, 17K)

Yes, it's useless of approximating the workload what 90% of people do 90% of the time.
As a render benchmark it's excellent.

Individual tabs in a web browser are generally single threaded. Opening a new web page is not faster on 8 vs 4 core. Laggy bloated websites are not faster on 8 vs 4 core.
Media playback is very efficiently parallelized, however seeing as you can playback 4K 60fps on a budget 4 core, it doesn't exactly make the case for more cores

>look at my big boy pants
If you do serious "computation" you shouldn't be buying consumer CPUs anyways.

>intel shills can't comprehend the concept of multitasking yet
kek

see

8 cores should be the max for the next 5-7 years

Until devs optimize games and other programs for 4+ cores there's no point in churning out coarz just for the sake of it

>there's no point in churning out coarz just for the sake of it
except selling boxes with big numbers written on them to "enthusiasts"

7-zip supports multi-threading, but depending on your compression settings and how many threads you want to use, you may need a lot of RAM to fully utilize it.

> nobody needs x core
Fucking shut the fuck up and make -j you pajeet

HEVC software encoding makes use of 8 threads and even 16 threads very efficiently. An 8-core ryzen at 4 GHz encodes FHD HEVC in real time. Knowing that something like we'll need 64-threaded processors to software encode 4K HEVC in real time. Though for the time being I don't think HEVC can use 32 threads efficiently yet but should change as improvements to the x265 encoding library are made.

Attached: 1491102742567.png (600x600, 582K)

Most phones have 8 cores I think.

The only thing that isn't multi threaded well is PC games. That's it. However, that is a big influence on what hardware a user chooses.

wheres source of these benchmarks, interested
also, is there one for x264?

ITT: morons who don't realize OP's point

Do all CPUS have threads?

Everything from the web-browser you're using right now to something as simple as notepad is NOT multi threaded well.
Your ignorance is why AMD and Intel are fooling you with "muh big numbers"

more cores means more resources
more resources means more threads can be activates
if an application is multithreaded the OS will take care about the details (it will run more threads on the cores if it wants to)
I work on the linux kernel (mostly the sched)

>more resources means more threads can be activates
Theory =/= practice m8. If the stuff you're actually interacting with is limited to 3 threads, it doesn't matter that you also have 15 background tasks idling the remaining threads

tfw I got a r5 1500x packing four PHAT cores precisely beacuse of this

Attached: feelsgood.png (659x609, 66K)

I can't tell if you're retarded or not but "thread" basically means "assembly line" for CPU operations. So yeah, all CPUs have at least one per core.

Attached: fry.png (603x452, 188K)

anandtech or techpowerup I think. Don't bother with the x264 one as intel cheats on that one with hardware acceleration of some sort on most tests.

they wont idle if there are more cores that's the whole idea of a multicore cpu m8