AMD 16 core prosseror in 2016

[madcratebuilder]

AMD reportedly working on a native 16-core processor
Read more at AMD plans native 16-core Steamroller-based processor for 2016 | TweakTown​

​

​

 

[Mellon Head]

I can see it for servers, where you can run VMs more easily, but why would a desktop need 16 cores when most software will barely support quads as it is right now? I have 8 cores and Windows doesn't really do anything with all of those except let me run multiple programs. 16 cores is just overkill for consumer machines IMHO.

 

[OvenMaster]

For those of us who run Folding@Home, 16 cores would be marvelous.

 

[Solarstarshines]

For those of us who run Folding@Home, 16 cores would be marvelous.

Agreed folding would get good use out of that for those who doesn't know what folding is quick understanding Folding@home - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mellon Head]

For those of us who run Folding@Home, 16 cores would be marvelous.

LOL. The one exception I hadn't thought of.

 

[LMiller7]

Any application that can use a large number of CPU bound threads would benefit from 16 cores. But the reality is that writing such an application is not easy and thus few that will benefit. Folding@Home is one such exception. Until computers with large numbers of cores are common there is little incentive for that to change.

Most applications spend the majority of their time waiting for something to do, during which time the consume zero CPU time. All computers wait at the same rate. Even when an application is using the CPU most of the time there is only 1 (or some small number) of threads that are actually running. Having 2 cores helps with system responsiveness but the benefits beyond that are limited. It is impossible for a thread to use more than one core at the same moment. That is the reality of how threads work.

When a set of open applications only has work for 2, 3 or 4 cores, adding more will only mean more cores with little to do.

Things are different in a busy server. A server with multiple virtual machines and serving a large number of active users can easily find work for 16 and more cores.

 

[CriticalError]

The only time you need 16 Core is if your rendering as most of those applications will take advantage of multiple cores, However 95% of apps barley use quad cores. Games like Bf4 have been written to take advantage of multiple cores, but as stated 16 cores is way overkill.

 

[Britton30]

AMD already has 16 core CPUs, and Intel 12 core.
Newegg.com - Server Processors, Server CPU

 

[CriticalError]

AMD already has 16 core CPUs, and Intel 12 core.
Newegg.com - Server Processors, Server CPU

Yes for servers, but I think they are releasing 16 cores for desktop users..

 

[madcratebuilder]

You gotta have the hardware first, then write the software to take advantage of it.

 

[smarteyeball]

You gotta have the hardware first, then write the software to take advantage of it.

....Years later.


AMD is good for mobile devices and servers. That's it.

 

[Indianatone]

You gotta have the hardware first, then write the software to take advantage of it.

....Years later.


AMD is good for mobile devices and servers. That's it.

I don't agree with that statement. AMD brought us 64 bit computing. If it were not for AMD we would be paying $2000 for a 2 core 3Ghz 32 bit CPU. It has taken a few years from XP64 but most of us love 64 bit systems and the better memory management. The same thing is happening with multiple cores. Software and games are gradually using the extra processing power of multiple cores (no matter who makes the chip). Operating systems are likely to benifit the most from the more cores the better and hopefully Windows 9 wil do that even better and not aleinate the desktop user with the toy interface 8 has. I remember a 700 Mhz Pentium 3 costing over $500 and an AMD Athlon 700Mhz which beat the crap out of it was $350. 14 years later Intel is still ripping peoples arms off with their prices.