CPU Core Count Mania. What do you need more cores for?

[moinmoin]

Compiling. When you have a big pile of C++ source files, you always need moar cores.

Virtualization is my poison these days.

These.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Real time transcoding for DLNA devices that dont support h265, or random set x in h264.

 

[TheELF]

As for anyone doing serious video encoding, why haven't you bought dedicated hardware that does it using dedicated low power asics? or GPU based? I thought this is what the broader professional industry does? For streaming, there are capture cards..? Again, dedicated low power asics.

Rendering? What's the trend here? I thought everything including ray tracing is headed towards GPUs?

Because when it first came out/became somewhat known reviewers did comparisons with ridiculously low bitrates to "prove" that hardware accelerated encoding is worse so there is still a great bias towards doing it with real cores.
The fact that a lot of software uses very bad settings as default (so that they can claim the highest factor of speed up) doesn't help either.
Intel's iGPU is fast enough to do 4k 265 encoding/streaming (same thing for the hardware) in faster then real time,a low end nvidia card is magnitudes faster then even that,all with almost zero impact on the CPU.

For rendering the GPUs aren't as good because they loose a lot of speed (compared to CPUs) on more complex scenes and you can only render scenes that can fit in the vram which is a very big problem.
The new metro game advertises ray tracing from a nvidia GPU so I have high hopes that the new gen will improve a lot on these issues.

 

[bbhaag]

Cores this and cores that....I've been hearing about how more cores are the best since 2011 when I joined this forum. It always happens when AMD brings a new cpu architecture to the table that are slower but have more cores. They have been doing this for a decade or more.
More cores don't matter. All you AMD guys are gonna blast me and say but now they will since AMD has relevant cpu's but I've heard this before when BD was launched then heard it again when AMD won the console bid and I'm hearing it now SEVEN YEARS later.....

FWIW I voted Other because you don't need more cores.

 

[ub4ty]

Because when it first came out/became somewhat known reviewers did comparisons with ridiculously low bitrates to "prove" that hardware accelerated encoding is worse so there is still a great bias towards doing it with real cores.
The fact that a lot of software uses very bad settings as default (so that they can claim the highest factor of speed up) doesn't help either.
Intel's iGPU is fast enough to do 4k 265 encoding/streaming (same thing for the hardware) in faster then real time,a low end nvidia card is magnitudes faster then even that,all with almost zero impact on the CPU.

For rendering the GPUs aren't as good because they loose a lot of speed (compared to CPUs) on more complex scenes and you can only render scenes that can fit in the vram which is a very big problem.
The new metro game advertises ray tracing from a nvidia GPU so I have high hopes that the new gen will improve a lot on these issues.

Thank you very much for this. This was indeed my survey of things about a year ago when this propaganda was heightened. Then, due to my work, I began doing video processing related tasks and discovered the copious amounts of nonsense centered on this topic. I use a far more power efficient dedicated hardware solution not my CPU.

 

[Markfw]

Cores this and cores that....I've been hearing about how more cores are the best since 2011 when I joined this forum. It always happens when AMD brings a new cpu architecture to the table that are slower but have more cores. They have been doing this for a decade or more.
More cores don't matter. All you AMD guys are gonna blast me and say but now they will since AMD has relevant cpu's but I've heard this before when BD was launched then heard it again when AMD won the console bid and I'm hearing it now SEVEN YEARS later.....

FWIW I voted Other because you don't need more cores.

That is only for very specific use cases. I can and want more cores (AMD or Intel) for the DC work I do, and others have said so for the rendering/encoding etc work they do. YOU don't need more cores, but a lot of us DO.

 

[maddie]

Cores this and cores that....I've been hearing about how more cores are the best since 2011 when I joined this forum. It always happens when AMD brings a new cpu architecture to the table that are slower but have more cores. They have been doing this for a decade or more.
More cores don't matter. All you AMD guys are gonna blast me and say but now they will since AMD has relevant cpu's but I've heard this before when BD was launched then heard it again when AMD won the console bid and I'm hearing it now SEVEN YEARS later.....

FWIW I voted Other because you don't need more cores.

Ha, I'll take a stab.

The reason AMD does this is because getting more cores from Intel is like pulling teeth, not because having more cores isn't good.

 

[epsilon84]

Cores this and cores that....I've been hearing about how more cores are the best since 2011 when I joined this forum. It always happens when AMD brings a new cpu architecture to the table that are slower but have more cores. They have been doing this for a decade or more.
More cores don't matter. All you AMD guys are gonna blast me and say but now they will since AMD has relevant cpu's but I've heard this before when BD was launched then heard it again when AMD won the console bid and I'm hearing it now SEVEN YEARS later.....

FWIW I voted Other because you don't need more cores.

How is your single core CPU treating you?

Of course cores matter, and they have mattered ever since the Pentium 4 hit the clockspeed wall and the industry had to find alternative ways to get additional performance.

How many cores we actually need is obviously based on the users needs. A basic browsing box can get by with a dual core, but as numerous people have mentioned in this thread, there are many people who can utilise as many cores as they have at their disposal

 

[VirtualLarry]

How is your single core CPU treating you?

This. I don't think people realize, the real difference that multiple cores makes. Sure, it may not affect the CPU usage % graph (which is generally out of all collective cores anyways) much, but it makes a real difference in responsiveness.

Try running your PC with a single-core CPU, and then try to do a task, while scanning for viruses / malware, or doing a heavy download, etc. while web browsing.

Then do the same thing on a dual-core PC. Then try a quad-core. See the difference?

I'm not really sure why some in the peanut gallery seem to think that this benefit stops at the quad-core mark, and doesn't extend to 6, 8, 10, MOAR CORES.

Yes, diminishing returns, Amdahl's Law, etc. we've heard the argument against multi-core.

Let me tell you this: Open Task Manager, click on CPU, look at the number of Threads. Until we have as many cores as there are threads to run, we'll see improvements in responsiveness. (Note Threads on my system are up in the 2000+ range.)

 

[whm1974]

This. I don't think people realize, the real difference that multiple cores makes. Sure, it may not affect the CPU usage % graph (which is generally out of all collective cores anyways) much, but it makes a real difference in responsiveness.

Try running your PC with a single-core CPU, and then try to do a task, while scanning for viruses / malware, or doing a heavy download, etc. while web browsing.

Then do the same thing on a dual-core PC. Then try a quad-core. See the difference?

I'm not really sure why some in the peanut gallery seem to think that this benefit stops at the quad-core mark, and doesn't extend to 6, 8, 10, MOAR CORES.

Yes, diminishing returns, Amdahl's Law, etc. we've heard the argument against multi-core.

Let me tell you this: Open Task Manager, click on CPU, look at the number of Threads. Until we have as many cores as there are threads to run, we'll see improvements in responsiveness. (Note Threads on my system are up in the 2000+ range.)

While you can benefit from having more cores, up to a certain point, you will also need to have decent storage and memory speeds as well to take advantage of them.

 

[piesquared]

Higher performance.
The better question is, why wouldn't you need more cores. Clock speed has hit a ceiling a long time ago so a higher core count and parallelism is how performance has been increasing since the last few years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

While you can benefit from having more cores, up to a certain point, you will also need to have decent storage and memory speeds as well to take advantage of them.

Obviously, the support architecture for the cores has to scale up too, to keep them properly fed (caches, memory bandwidth / channels, etc). I wasn't suggesting just increasing core count massively in a vacuum.

But think of things that you could do, with a CPU with 2048 cores, like a GPU. Think of maybe, VR simulations, where every object gets its own dedicated processing core allocated to it. Talk about responsiveness to updates! (Assuming that whatever future GPU can also keep up with the geometry demands too.)

 

[whm1974]

Obviously, the support architecture for the cores has to scale up too, to keep them properly fed (caches, memory bandwidth / channels, etc). I wasn't suggesting just increasing core count massively in a vacuum.

But think of things that you could do, with a CPU with 2048 cores, like a GPU. Think of maybe, VR simulations, where every object gets its own dedicated processing core allocated to it. Talk about responsiveness to updates! (Assuming that whatever future GPU can also keep up with the geometry demands too.)

You would need to use a different ISA instead of x86 and the software that can use that many cores. Something like that will be far more suitable for data centers, supercomputers, and the like.

 

[ub4ty]

You would need to use a different ISA instead of x86 and the software that can use that many cores. Something like that will be far more suitable for data centers, supercomputers, and the like.

I really feel where in the beginning stages of a hardware boom and era.
It switches back and forth between hardware and software and then there's a coupling phase.
I'm ready for some breakout tech beyond AMD and Intel. I have been following a number of very promising groups trying to change the phase of computing and processor technology and I am very excited about what lies ahead. New architectures. New paradigms and bold new leaps. RISC is growing in popularity again. I just watched a video of how Nvidia is using tons of RISC based micro-processors in their architecture and is now invested deeply into maturing it beyond this realm.

Very interesting times ahead especially with new paradigms of computing that are begging for : MOAR CORES

 

[whm1974]

I really feel where in the beginning stages of a hardware boom and era.
It switches back and forth between hardware and software and then there's a coupling phase.
I'm ready for some breakout tech beyond AMD and Intel. I have been following a number of very promising groups trying to change the phase of computing and processor technology and I am very excited about what lies ahead. New architectures. New paradigms and bold new leaps. RISC is growing in popularity again. I just watched a video of how Nvidia is using tons of RISC based micro-processors in their architecture and is now invested deeply into maturing it beyond this realm.

Very interesting times ahead especially with new paradigms of computing that are begging for : MOAR CORES

Speaking of RISC, I've been looking at the RISC-V guys. Of course it would be awhile before it becomes more widely available.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Many Cores has helped me multi-task like a fiend. As a Virtualization Engineer, I do a *lot* of Virtualization and Container stuff. The more real cores, the more I can keep my pCPU:vCPU ratio in check and minimize the CPU Ready percentages.

Even when I'm gaming, I like not having to shut my work off in the background, have Firefox with all its tabs loaded, Discord in group chats, etc. etc. I now have more processing power in my 1700X rig than one of my E5-2600 Xeon rigs in the back room. That's pretty impressive to me.

 

[kjboughton]

Moar Cores = moar Threadripper tears. So delicious!

 

[deathBOB]

Where is the epeen option?

 

[PeterScott]

Where is the epeen option?

I do recognize I missed two big options. Software compiling and e-Peen. If I had thought of it, I would have added them to make the poll more complete.

 

[eek2121]

Cores this and cores that....I've been hearing about how more cores are the best since 2011 when I joined this forum. It always happens when AMD brings a new cpu architecture to the table that are slower but have more cores. They have been doing this for a decade or more.
More cores don't matter. All you AMD guys are gonna blast me and say but now they will since AMD has relevant cpu's but I've heard this before when BD was launched then heard it again when AMD won the console bid and I'm hearing it now SEVEN YEARS later.....

FWIW I voted Other because you don't need more cores.

Somebody has his blinders on.

 

[NTMBK]

I do recognize I missed two big options. Software compiling and e-Peen. If I had thought of it, I would have added them to make the poll more complete.

Can you not edit the poll?

 

[PeterScott]

Can you not edit the poll?

I didn't think you could do that, but you are correct. Edited.

 

[moinmoin]

I didn't think you could do that, but you are correct. Edited.

One can even change the vote. Changed accordingly.

 

[DooKey]

People over Distributed Computing sub-forum would love to cram as many CPU cores as possible in one machine.

Yep, this is me.

 

[Headfoot]

digital audio workstation with heavy plugin load. we're talking 20 tracks, many of them virtual instruments or convolution based impulse response plugins plus a fleet of EQs, compressors, and other signal processing chains

My OC 6 core can still handle everything but faster bounce to WAV/MP3 the better