Can You Have TOO Many CPU Cores?

[@ffKingcreole]

I'm a simple blender user, i see more cores, i like

[@SToNeOwNz]

My food processor does all the blending I need with only a single core.

[@openlink9958]

@@SToNeOwNz underrated

[@mariocdi8205]

@@openlink9958 its been 20 minutes how is it underrated

[@openlink9958]

@@mariocdi8205 it only has 3 likes even though is funny af

[@mr_0n10n5]

Oh my g...🤣🤣

[@darkuit585]

The human eye can only see 32 cores

[@Michealxlr]

2020 has never seen such bullshit

[@budgetbajur]

That's only for a trained eye, regular people can see only 4 cores :(

[@gausts]

@@budgetbajur Old xeons are the only CPUs with good value.

[@kaksidaksi3455]

playstationplayers: not really human eye can see only 1 core

[@budgetbajur]

Yeah, that's why I'd recommend buying a 3970X, disabling SMT and 31 cores to get the best performance

[@meeeeeeauuuuuuuu]

considering my tinder performance i have a question, can 0 cores get the job done?

[@Mishkafofer]

take your right hand, make a zero with two fingers and enjoy the ride.

[@TheKb117]

@@Mishkafofer exactly the comment/reply I was looking for... :D

[@asdfdfggfd]

Intel in 2019: "4 cores ought to be enough for everyone"

[@guy_5108]

Tbh for most people it is.

[@dotalegendery3998]

When did they say that?

[@awrsish]

@@dotalegendery3998 its implied

[@mikeythanos]

@@guy_5108 I would say with the way games are going. 6 cores is plenty enough for a while

[@silverpill120]

I like to think that 6 threads are good enough for just gaming, no compromises.

[@TheCrusaderBin]

So, where can we buy such a cool looking hoodie? You never told us.

[@Miles300s]

_Oh God, _*_I'm crippled with indecision!_*

[@kabusthepotato9572]

*inhales* LTTSTORE.COM!!!

[@mdd1963]

there is no super-gay LTT logo on it.....! :)

[@zacharywilliams6492]

@@mdd1963 just when you thought 12 year olds were over using "gay" as an adjective for things they don't like...

[@mdd1963]

@@zacharywilliams6492 Maybe it was used as a compliment? Do you always assume 'gay' to be a derogatory term, perhaps? :)

[@phatec]

Intel: Yes, too many cores is bad because we can’t keep up. AMD: More DOTS! I mean more CORES!

[@moomoomoomuu]

@BMWMED1 , My brain hurts from reading that.

[@Shankovich]

@@moomoomoomuu It's ok, he's still busy trying to find a reason for paying more for intel to have less.

[@Shankovich]

@BMWMED1 whatever keyboard warrior go back to your Doritos

[@propellhatt]

Dyatlov: I NEED WATER IN MY CORE!

[@oslier3633]

Shankovich well, you started crying first

[@bencoomer2000]

"Can you have too many CPU cores?" No; Dr. Su.

[@thejaydotexe]

If RAM access is an issue you can just download more.

[@drabberfrog]

But you can't download Ram, it's a physical component not software

[@thejaydotexe]

@@drabberfrog ez pz

[@drabberfrog]

@@Hohst Whoosh I was just joking about that. I know about the download Ram meme I don't live under a rock

[@minartson]

@@drabberfrog So explaining how it really works is a counter joke? You didn't get the joke lmao, stop trying.

[@drabberfrog]

@@minartsonsays the person that had to explain to me why I shouldn't explain the joke I did

[@TiagoMorbusSa]

More dates on tinder is better? I wouldn't know.

[@ashnton]

I can sense that this will get loads of likes

[@unocualqu1era]

Of course it's better, just like STD's from Tinder Dates. Gotta catch 'em all!

[@sabcoak846]

Oof

[@markg6160]

Because you're stuck in a loveless dreadful marriage, like me?

[@gausts]

This isn't funny at all. Now I know 90% of the LTT fanbase are reddit-obsessed 12yr olds.

[@MazeFrame]

When you have too many cores, you are just lacking tasks.

[@gameralexx475]

Me with 1 mega core (1024 cores) being like ah yes not enough

[@asynchronousongs]

@@gameralexx475 a mega core would have a million cores, not a thousand

[@morosis82]

So I guess that nixes me for that cool 1024 thread 2U server from Dell.

[@thetshadow999animates9]

@@gameralexx475 you mean kilocore?

[@chandlerreynolds40]

That CPU install at 3:15 is brutal

[@BusAlexey]

that's how i got a bent pin lol

[@troglodev2533]

He just... jammed it in there. 😳

[@carringbushpet]

prob cause it's just a pleb Ryzen 5 and LMG just got in their haul of Cascade Lake X and 3rd Gen Threadrippers. A 3600 is barely a paperweight to Lord Linus

[@troglodev2533]

carringbushpet what’s wrong with Ryzen 5s?

[@BusAlexey]

@@carringbushpet those high-end cpu's are not gifts, they are review samples. LTT can't sell them, so they have $0 value to LTT outside of reviews and build showcases

[@jmshrv]

Don't worry, 3950x owners. I'll happily trade you a superior Celeron processor for free.

[@franciscraig8164]

Intel Marketing slide leaked, 2019.

[@mehmeh1999]

Wait do you also trade for a xeon phi 7210?

[@tylerdurden3722]

If it has twice the single thread performance than a 3950x and 4 to 6 cores,, then I'll make that trade without blinking.

[@coryandrum]

When are they going to add the link in the corner..... he always points at it but the person the uploads them never adds it.

[@Miles300s]

Yeah, I noticed that. Annoying

[@carringbushpet]

I came down here to look for this comment

[@adamkerkemeyer]

carringbushpet same

[@coryandrum]

They managed to do it fine in the new "$900 Ryzen Gaming Build Guide" at 1:20; is Denis doing the Techquickie?

[@Garmbrael]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3-vmZaEm7qYhKc here you go

[@MrMassari1231]

64 cores exist Me: running dual cord in my laptop

[@CheapBastard1988]

My laptop only needs one cord😜. Seriously it's a laptop so it will always be a compromise between performance and battery life. Slightly more powerful than you need it to be and the best battery life you can get with that performance. If a dual core Pentium CPU with iGPU is enough then you get awesome battery life in return.

[@towsif_8_128]

Cord!?!? You mean backbone, right?😆

[@PanhaNamikaze]

Cord?

[@JoeStuffz]

Surprisingly enough, dual power brick laptops do indeed exist.

[@Masterrunescapeer]

My 6c/12t 9750H says hi from a laptop that has a RTX 2060 while having ~5 hours battery life in power saving, 3 hours when streaming youtube at max brightness or about one and a half hours gaming (though I don't advise doing this on battery, not good for the battery). That said, my old i7 4720HQ never managed past about 3 hours on battery saver, 45 minutes gaming, with a GTX960M. Laptops have come a long way, it's more of a case of price/performance/weight, and I'm fine with my 1.8kg 15.5" laptop.

[@tepkisiz]

Linus: Can you have too many cores? AMD : Hold my Threadripper 3990x ................................................................... AMD: How much cache do we need to make 8 chiplets 64 cores feasible? AMD engineers: YES

[@TheVillainOfTheYear]

MOAR MEMES!

[@samuraivader3814]

The ears can’t hear past 20 cores so why bother.

[@mp6412]

SamuraiVader underrated comment

[@JoeStuffz]

Reminds me of someone bragging about the Cell processor. "Oh yeah. The SPEs can mix thousands of audio streams, but the human ear can only hear (some number far below that), so it doesn't really matter"... Also, some of the PS3's CPU problems are actually explained in this video well.

[@lilgazebo7952]

Correction, you *NEVER* have enough cores This post was made by the AMD gang

[@filadelfozuniga3411]

*This is an intel sponsored video

[@tommihommi1]

This post is supported by the Linux gang

[@Lucian_Andries]

Hell yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@murphy7801]

@@tommihommi1 oh man linuxs ability use multicore is so good

[@gausts]

@@murphy7801 Nobody uses linux.

[@leorickg]

Joke of the day: this video is sponsored by Intel's revival of the 22nm dual core Pentium G processor. Haha

[@OuchMyHooves]

"High CPU core counts give you no tactical advantage whatsoever." - Big Boss, 1964

[@rbnhd1976]

Look like you gotta busted headlight boy (crash)

[@Skylancer727]

2:00 Hello my fello people from 2004.

[@coldfusionstormgaming1808]

_Agressive chair dancing_

[@juanbrits3002]

Intel kept progression slow by keeping to 4 cores and rehashing it for years, imagine the progression we would've had if Intel never decided to screw the consumer for max profits.

[@combatjm89]

Was that James or Riley singing the NUMA jingle?

[@rohithkumarsp]

Lol

[@bojoxxx]

you mean O-Zone - Dragostea Din Tei? Very much sounded like it :D

[@sam.mankar]

I really love how Linus explains complicated things in an easy way.

[@livingcorpse5664]

2:03 This little dance alone makes the entire video worth watching.

[@simply_cake]

64 core cpu: exists Firemen: *heavy sweating*

[@512TheWolf512]

Gonna upgrade to ryzen this spring, wish me luck!

[@herbetrono4373]

you dont need luck mate! i got a 2700x and its awesome-my 3950x just arrived,YIP YIP YIPPPPEEEEEEEE!!

[@iconict2365]

Ryzen isnt bad at all, it's faster than intel

[@mikeramos91]

Yes how’d that upgrade go?

[@WarriorsPhoto]

This is how I feel about CPU cores as well. If software isn’t written to utilize all the cores available then we’ll see some delays. Good video thank you.

[@ARandomInternetUser08]

I still have a single core 3GHz Pentium 4 desktop that I got 9 years ago and it's still running great. It is surprisingly responsive for such an old computer.

[@nerotenebre]

Jokes on you, I've just downloaded 18 cores for my i3 2120

[@MahdiShibly]

Jokes on you, downloading 64 cores

[@s1ndrome117]

@@MahdiShibly jokes on you, i'm downloading Nasa computer

[@CpCubeR]

Was it a zip map? Because there is a chance there is a gpu folder in it, go to 2080ti and install it

[@MahdiShibly]

@@s1ndrome117 with great power comes great responsibility. Start seeding the cores

[@PigeonDetective]

I sure hope that your getting those cores directly from Intel. You wouldn't want to be caught pirating cores. I learned that lesson when I tried to download RAM for free.

[@randomgeocacher]

Explanation of NUMA UMA was really great. Simple and clear!

[@oven88]

2:03 for the tasteful

[@thegeneralist7527]

This is why benchmark comparisons are the gold standard.

[@rezaman2080]

2:03 Did I just hallucinate that for a sec? 😂😂😂 "Mayahi"

[@RavingMad]

I find your videos entertaining and educative. Even your ads are so well presented, unless it's a repeat ad for me for the 3rd time, I love watching them.

[@johnwill4560]

What about disabling cores when you use your CPU for gaming

[@vaikkajoku]

pointless

[@spork8655]

Not always pointless. You can often hit higher clock speeds when some cores are disabled, though it's not worth it for everyone.

[@BigDaddyAddyMS]

Try playing Far Cry 3 on 8 cores vs disabling 4 cores. 4>8 in old ass games.

[@auturgicflosculator2183]

I had an FX-6300 that OCed to 6.1 GHz with 4 cores disabled. Made it about 85% as fast as the 4790k@4.6 GHz I upgraded to later, but unable to run multi-threaded games well due to only having 2 cores. The 4790k ran games slightly better with HT off, but disabling cores offered no extra OC potential. The 4790k died in a lightning strike, and was replaced with an R5 2600. I can get a slightly higher stable OC with 3 cores disabled, 4.25 GHz, but the stable 4.125 GHz I get with all 6 cores is fine. There's still a little voltage headroom, but I'd rather not push it over the present 1.4V for long term use.

[@SToNeOwNz]

@@auturgicflosculator2183 Sounds like the fabled CPU lottery. Also lighting didn't give you super OC powers?

[@writerpatrick]

It's surprising that most programs don't make use of multiple cores. But it can be useful to assign cores so that certain programs like video processing don't tie up the computer.

[@TP-rs5zl]

0:00 That's more money then I've ever had saved up in my entire 20 year life.

[@SiisKolkytEuroo]

Maybe it means you're bad with money

[@minartson]

@@SiisKolkytEuroo Or maybe he doesn't live in a huge country. I live in a small country and currently make 600 euros a month, a good wage in our country is about 1500 a month, if you can score this, you are doing well. Good IT technicians can score over 2k a month, but that's a massive rarity here. A top job(below managing and non-politicians) nets you around 3k a month which is a low-end pay in the US.

[@gardian06_85]

@@minartson this is an example of why the "single market" doesn't work, and different countries should use different currencies if the value of that currency would not match the euro. though this does depend on the state in the US (yes I know that state means something different to the rest of the world, but nation state, made of nation states) US federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr (6.51 euro) assuming 160 hr month is only 1,042 euro a month. though a state like California, or Washington that has around $12/hr (10.77 euro) is 1724 euro a month. and there is a movement to standardize minium wage to $15/hr (would be 2155 euro a month).even with all this being said an ok wage is only about $2667 a month (2394 euro) so your perception of american minimums/low-end a bit out of balance, your country might not be the greatest, but wages should also be put into perspective with cost of living, I have a feeling that the 600 euro a month doesn't make you homeless, and that 2k a month is probably only a modest house.

[@Atan-ik5lg]

"Can you have TOO Many CPU Cores?" - Stares at his 4-user multi-workstation - Me: I'll get back to you on that one, yea?

[@teriinekoyama1369]

In your case, it's the exception around there. In fact, the end of the video pertains to this use case.

[@tylerdurden3722]

You have to admit, 9000 cores would be a bit redundant 😅

[@Dibowac]

Can you have too many CPU Cores?. *_AMD wants to know your location._* [10-12-2019_21_26.]

[@wlt16]

sounds like he got his Intel Check.

[@tylerdurden3722]

Nah...it sounds like he's looking out for consumers. Protecting them from evil marketing that's trying to decieve people into buying more cores than they will ever use.

[@ZuBeRCraZyBassY]

Linus 2019: I create problems where they don't exist.

[@SATOTEHDOOD]

Leader: So how many cores do you want? Tech guys: YES.

[@SamA-cy8eu]

I agree with Linus... Linus send me your 3950X!!!

[@nicholasjoseph9062]

Give this guy an upvote so that Linus will send it.

[@pixels_per_inch]

Maybe Linus regret getting a 3900x for his personal computer.

[@Mike504]

Thanks for the Numa Numa dance reference.

[@JR-mk6ow]

CPUs with hundreds of cores and programmers still not using multi-threading.

[@kalijasin]

@J R, because most apps already run in real time and are Not overly cpu intensive. #Bloatware

[@pixels_per_inch]

The main reason is that most software can only process the next task only if the previous one is already done (if this then that algorithm) Like in games, you can't predict if the player will press W, A, S or D unless the player have already done so. However, in video editing, it already has all the frames and all the effects on the table, the first core can process the first frame and the second core can process the second frame and so on (where more cores = more frames being rendered simultaneously) since it already know the steps needed to render the video.

[@nextlifeonearth]

An AMD FX module is like 2 contractor workers that share their second most used tool. They work very well for integer logic, but gotta wait for the other to finish with the floating point operation.

[@IanNewYashaTheFinalAct]

0:32 Linus just spotted Solid Snake ❗️

[@johnmadsen37]

I have an older t5500 2 x 6 cpu, 74gb ram. On numa, when starting a Hyper-v guest, it takes more time to start up a larger dedicated memory guest. This is because in the background, it is actually reorganizing memory pages to shuffle them to the closest cpu. After it does that and ram pages are moves, stopping and starting takes Nirmal time. Very interesting. This doesn’t really happen much on newer systems, especially with higher bus speeds , latency is reduced. The lesson is, it is what it is. ;)

[@Chriva]

For games? -Yeah. For heavy tasks: We're not there yet :P

[@Mvp-AngelOfGod]

It awesome a lot of newer games are supporting more cores

[@nonamehere1626]

I don't think we'll get there ever, even those 8000+ core clusters aren't bottlenecked in any way with higher core count.

[@Chriva]

@@Mvp-AngelOfGod Indeed. Tho there's a limit to how much you can spread the load for some parts of the game. Not everything can be spread over several threads unfortunately

[@budgetbajur]

Maybe they support it but isn't as efficient as fewer cores with high frequency

[@zamundaaa776]

@@budgetbajur it's exactly the other way around. It's a lot *more* efficient than fewer higher clocked cores.

[@jacobw703]

Small addition, but I think worth noting (can't recall if Linus has addressed this in the past or not). Frequency in and of itself only has a linear affect on the power needed by a cpu. If the only thing that changes about the cpu is the frequency, the power will go up, but not as much as you might think. It's the fact that higher frequencies generally require higher voltages in order to remain stable, and changes in voltage have a quadratic effect on the power consumed and outputted as heat.

[@bonemealmc]

The human body can only process 1 core

[@sburton015]

How about the core i7-6800k with 6 cores and 12 threads? I was still able to overclock it to 4.3 ghz on all cores. I have that paired with a GTX 1080 and 16 gb ddr4 gskill ram at 3000mhz.

[@a7818k]

sponsored by Intel Core 2 Duo . .

[@ThePicha14]

Can we get a video comparing technology of CPUs. With comparison of exact core count and core clock CPUs. For example 4 core 8 threads at 3Ghz i7 4 gen vs 5th, 6th, 7th and Especially vs AMD technology? Please

[@P8qzxnxfP85xZ2H3wDRV]

This video completely failed to mention Amdahl's law. There's a hard mathematical limit to how many cores you can make use of. It's not just a current technological limit. It's a limit that cannot be overcome for all time. If you're running a single application, having the inevitably sequential part of the computation be as low as just 1/32nd or 1/64th, is borderline impossible. Of course servers that are hit with loads from multiple users that run independently of each other can do with even more cores, but a personal computer with more than 64 cores will maybe never make sense.

[@stonium69]

This is true but somewhat misleading in the sense that there’s no actual limits on how much of a program is sequential. Even things that seem like they must happen in order, like calculating the digits of pi, can be easily parallelized indefinitely.

[@NexxtMeme]

I need more cores. How else am I supposed to play Minecraft in 8k??

[@TheHighborn]

While video is accurate... This video is sponsored by intel. This is painfully last gen

[@jonathanpeters9271]

did I hear the metal gear solid alert sound effect in there? great work, Linus and crew; love your videos

[@FuncleChuck]

For the past two weeks I’ve had 128 cores in my phone, and here’s my review.

[@adisar2002]

this is linus mate, not marques

[@System64MC]

3:44 I didn't know what I was getting myself into when I bought a FX 8350... It's not like performance is abysmal, but it's very slow in tests such as Cinebench.

[@BilguunsparKO]

whenever new ryzen releases everyone on the internet becomes streamers and content creators

[@yancgc5098]

I know right?

[@remytv]

I'm a gamer and heavy Photoshop / illustrator user and having tons of cores is useless to me lol

[@Code-n-Flame]

Yep. And we know damn well most of them just game and watch porn on them.

[@Blaquegold]

I have a 9900k and I feel that’s a well rounded processor with a descent core/thread count. But that does not mean I would not want more like the 3900x and 3950x. I think unless you are using it for work 16 cores is adequate but with how things are these days eventually 16 cores mainstream may be laughed at one day.

[@dillbourne]

I am so glad that Numa Numa parody only lasted 3 seconds

[@ziomalisty]

Maya Hee, Maya Hoo, Maya Ha, Maya Ha ha!

[@harshbarj]

Depends on what you are doing. If you are just writing documents and browsing the web, one or two cores is more than enough. If gaming,2-4 are generally ideal. When encoding video / audio as well as rendering the more cores the better. Though there are diminishing returns. So there comes a point that you have to add so many cores to make a noticeable difference that it's not worth it.

[@SnehPatel96]

Intel: Linus please make a video so people stop buying high core AMD AMD: we run more cores, FASTER

[@fein19]

So which one is better for streaming and gaming in the same time? 12.12.2019

[@tylerdurden3722]

8 cores for that use case. Getting more cores than that is like feeding caviar to a camel.

[@fein19]

@@tylerdurden3722 Thanks, I already have a R5 2600 (6 cores 12 threads max 3.9 GHz) and i't still enough for the games I play and stream! ;)

[@O6i]

8 cores is perfect to me! Thank you AMD!

[@OAcessoPublico]

8 core is fantastic. My Ryzen 2700x doesn't even flinch on everyday use

[@lazycreator7794]

That 1:41 dead shot was well synced with the script. 😂👌👌

[@BuggsyMogues]

Calling Abode software "highly threaded"

[@Twinrehz]

Did you intentionally write "Abode", or was that autocorrect at work?

[@Twinrehz]

@TheMadTitanSkid Well in all seriousness, an abode can be made from adobe (it's a type of mud brick). 😁

[@Zeikaii]

I would love a video on why we don't have like a dual core cpu or a quad core with insanely high clock speeds. The trend is more cores at the 3-5ghz range, why don't we have dedicated gaming cpus in the 6-9ghz range?

[@WeldonSirloin]

The comment section can only communicate with one meme.

[@Electracarbine]

I'm a simple gamer, I see higher clock speeds, I like

[@gelzgrant13]

I only have 4 cores cpu. Where can i download more cores

[@Behold6The6Darkness6]

www.amd.com/en/support

[@noway9081]

Have you heard of the Adepteva multicore processor from eight years ago? It was a kickstarter campaign to create a crazy multicore chip with 16 to 32 cores that promised a "supercomputer for everyone". Here is the wikipedia article en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapteva I would love for you to get a hold of one of these oddities and test it out.

[@theunconventionaldeal3879]

I compile therefore I multicore! 128 cores and 256 threads please. 👍

[@scottstevens8756]

There are also software limitations. Assuming calculations can be made totally independently then adding parallelism helps. If you have either contention or cohesion (co-ordinating threads, intermediate results of calculations etc) then there is an inflection point where more parallelism will impact performance (regardless of any other factors) cran.r-project.org/web/packages/usl/vignettes/usl.pdf

[@yetidynamics]

video should have been "Can you have TOO many CPU cores" "No" done

[@bobafett9162]

@0:37 I am pretty sure they wanted to hypnotize us...

[@Akuuumi]

short answer: mabye

[@Miles300s]

Akumi: _short answer: mabye_ *maybe

[@towsif_8_128]

*Long answer:* Well yes but actually no. I mean, yes still no. Still yes but nope. Not but yes but no. Okay then, its yes but still is not. Ah, nope actually but not yes. Yeah well, its not. Its not for real but not yes. Its spam but no. Well okay but no. Okay but a bit nope. No well but no. Actually its a no. Never, still for consoling, okay. Nope, okay then. Well, I disagree; just no.

[@Miles300s]

@@towsif_8_128 Uh..... *_Nein._*

[@haloclips5387]

Can u please make a video about distributed computing?

[@Magmava]

The human eye can only see 4 cores

[@Collegia_Titanica]

Actually, 32, can't you read ^ ?

[@auturgicflosculator2183]

THERE! ARE! FOUR CORES!

[@briansk869]

Please do a video on on 2019 CPUs FPS/Dollar

[@aelderdonian]

0:01 - To see Intel's emergency deposit into Linus' bank account.

[@wainainandungu6278]

i love linus videos they are so random sometimes that you get addicted to the channel easily

[@anug14]

Linus were u in Amsterdam recently?

[@weetjewatikwil1]

Yez with me

[@Xofttam]

I have about 280 cores. On my Apple tree. They have Apples round them.

[@Xofttam]

@@Ryufan60 jealousy of my tree. Never thought id see the day

[@moracomole8090]

Can You Have TOO Many CPU Cores? Intel:*YES* AMD:*NO*

[@user-blahhh-blahhh]

Please do a video on Intel different "lake" series cpu, it will help viewers decide on which chipset to buy for their laptops.

[@qwerty6789x]

Looks like Intel wrote.the script and sponsored too🤣

[@XavierXonora]

Just to be clear, AMD's new EPYC Rome CPU's are addressed as a single numa node in the default configuration, with performance gains of around 10% possible when splitting it to 4. That's quite a bit different to the previous generation

[@karelbitter8040]

Science: Amd is better than intel. linus : this video is made possible by brilliant and !!!!!! INTEL !!!!!!!

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

The only time it's a tradeoff (which is still common, given how many programs STILL don't support multiple threads) is if you're using something that doesn't support extra cores/threads. Mostly an issue with games, business software that doesn't support multi-threading is almost always stuff like word processors that don't NEED the extra CPU horsepower.

[@Supermanohman]

Wait a minute! Hold on a second! Don't move! You're saying the moral of the story here is to buy for your specific needs? What?! So I guess I didn't need an EPYC to play Shadow of the Tomb Raider after all. Well WTF?!

[@schumbo8324]

I want to think that processors with that many cores dont access the memeory like this 1:45

[@qee540]

err; well we all know that there needs to be a communicator. i wonder if we ever had more than just 2 like those. but then i'll be very expensive + the size of it.

[@Trainz2950]

Get this anti AMD propaganda out of my sight

[@qee540]

err... not really. else there won't be a need for considerations. though for blender and such, or if one have 6 monitors screens; higher core will helps a lot.

[@Jumptohistory]

Why are you offended

[@Alphahydro]

That was funny

[@TheMartinScott]

Also, the OS's overhead and ability to manage processes/threads can hurt performance when juggling more CPUs and Cores. (Especially older kernel models that saturated the first couple of cores to manage the threads and locks to other cores.) In the mid 00s, more than 8 Cores/CPU was hard for Linux, as Linux's Linus famously discussed at the time, as there were not plans for the general version of the kernel to perform well with more cores. (Which has since changed significantly, but was an interesting blip in the history of the Linux kernel.) With NT (Windows) version 7 received a huge update to the kernel to eliminate most of the overhead when working with 64 or more CPUs/Cores. Windows 8 & 10 received another large set of scheduling optimizations and capabilities for multi core performance. For example, additional information is considered for each core and what threads to use, thus being able to schedule cores based on location, stability, and temperature. This is the reason the XBox One originally had more stable frame rates than the PS4, as the kernel was able to thermal balance threads on the SoC - which was unique to Windows NT at the time. There are still a few scheduling advantages that are still unique to Windows 10 (NT) - with GPU preemptive scheduling, and processor agnostic scheduling being the two most known. The second one meaning Windows can send threads through any cores/CPUs, GPUs and co-processors, even if the code wasn't intended for that processor or type of processor.

[@xidentity872]

Here I thought finally someone will talk about Amdahl's Law...nope guess not

[@RekzysTheTitan]

atd godjjj what’s that? Tell me everything!

[@Ravengeno]

@@RekzysTheTitan It's effectively a limit on how much you can speed up a program no matter how many cores youve got. Most, if not all, problems are only so parallell and the time it takes to run is limited to at least the time it takes to execute the non parallell part.

[@NeilRoy]

Before I built a new system this year I done some research on the frame rates between single core and multicore when gaming and many games don't even support multicores for gaming and those that do, there was very little difference. I am a casual gamer and I am happy with a moderate frame rate, enough to keep things smooth. I mainly wanted something to improve my Blender renders and that will use all the cores you have along with the threads so I ended up going with a comfortable, and affordable Ryzen 5-2600 which has 6 cores / 12 threads. It definitely pays to research this stuff online here and and in gaming benchmarks etc. I done a ton of research for my system over several months and what I ended up with is very nice and I kept the costs way down.

[@Diviance]

On the flipside, it is quite possible that with the next generation of consoles using Ryzen-style CPU's, games might begin to take greater advantage of more CPU cores more regularly. They will probably have to if they want to ensure consistent performance.

[@NeilRoy]

@@Diviance Not nessecarily. CPUs in modern games are not relied upon as heavily as they used to be in the past. I did some 3D programming myself and these days the GPU (video card) does most of the heavy work. 3D programming changed so much in the past couple decades, I had to relearn modern OpenGL as now you load in shader programs, which are programs that are sent to the video card, it then compiles them on the fly for use with the video card. You then send your 3D data to the video card to be processed and displayed. A lot of math is done on the GPU now and video processing like what you watch on KZbin. This isn't going to change anytime soon. If you want to improve your game performance, you could probably keep your current CPU and buy a better GPU and you will see a huge jump. In fact, I actually did this! I had a ten year old system. An old AMD triple core CPU, no hyperthreading of any sort and 12G of RAM. I had an old video card, a GTX650 which was newer than 10 years. I was in the process of building a new system (which i am on now) and I bought a GTX1050ti and started to use it in my old computer with the 10 year old CPU right away and immediately was able to run games that I had a hard time with at very high settings. My CPU is now an AMD Ryzen 5-2600 with 6 cores/ 12 threads. And it helps due to the much higher clock speed (3.8GHz overclocked slightly). My main reason for getting it was to use the 12 threads in 3D rendering with Blender which will use it. And the CPU's speed was nice for gaming for a good cost. If you want to improve your gaming, don't look for more cores but look for a CPU with a higher clock speed. Because games don't use multicores as much, a higher clock speed will net you a MUCH greater frame rate. In fact, I have seen tests people have run on single core speed ratings verses multicore on games that support it, and the difference was very small, and even worse on multicore in some cases if I remember. If it's for gaming, look for a higher clock speed over more cores. Save your money for a better video card instead of a multicore CPU. If you're doing 3D rendering than that can benefit from both multicores and a good 3D card. Blender just added support for RTX video cards as well (real time ray tracing).

[@Calplus]

*if amd adds more cores, 7th gen ryzen will have enough cores to make it a gpu*

[@spctator63]

Question, since streaming is becoming more and more popular, if i wanted to play and stream on the same machine, would i need a cpu with more cores than what is normally considered "good" for gaming, but still not too many? Is streaming even considered a multicore task? or does the combination of both tasks (gaming and streaming) require/benefits from multicore CPUs?