Well the 2c/4t Ryzen APU will serve for a cheap rig I wonder if this would be an example of penny wise and pound foolish?What makes it too much? It's seems like a very ill defined question.
The real question is how much is enough?
For most of the mainstream it will likely be 4 cores for some time to come. Heck 2 cores will probably be enough for a significant portion, which is why AMD recently added the 2 core Ryzen segment.
I wouldn't recommend dual cores to my friends, but grannies Facebook computer really doesn't need more than 2C/4T.Well the 2c/4t Ryzen APU will serve for a cheap rig I wonder if this would be an example of penny wise and pound foolish?
I'm of the thought that the minimum APU/CPU for a basic box should be at least have a 4c/4t one but however if one can build a basic Linux box for ~$300 or less, then it will do for someone who can't afford much. Something cheap to give a kid? Or for a kid to put together for a learning experience...I wouldn't recommend dual cores to my friends, but grannies Facebook computer really doesn't need more than 2C/4T.
When you think about it, the average web/productivity/media consumption of most people doesn't need more than that.
I paid attention to what taxes my computer. To make any kind of CPU usage dent, even in my ancient C2Q, it's still really only Gaming or Video encoding that taxes more than two cores. The rest of the time I could probably be a on 2C/4T machine and not notice the difference.
Obviously people with more specialized uses can use more cores, but it probably isn't most people.
Mainstream transcoding is handled by qsv/nvenc/vce it's many times faster than even high core count CPUs.Since the title says "mainstream desktop" which implies a web, office email box I choose lowest one of 6 cores. Even dual-core is enough for these tasks and if you include gaming and transcoding I would not call it mainstream, anymore.
???Only gaming needs many cores and only because devs screw us over and reduce our cores into jaguar cores.
He's basically saying that the developers do a poor job of porting (and optimizing) games to the PC from the consoles.
Not only that but video editing software itself has gotten a lot smarter. Eg, you record 2hrs of video then want to add "burned in" descriptive captions / annotations that take up a cumulative 5min. Old software needed the whole 2hrs recompressed if you changed even a single frame, newer smart encoding software is intelligent enough to just recompress only the chunks that have changed to the nearest before / after keyframes using the same resolution, frame-rate and profile, then seamlessly insert it into the original. End result, 2hrs -> 5-10mins work = a 12-24x speedup on every CPU, even if you were using the slowest possible software encoding method. As for Quicksync / ShadowPlay vs archival grade X264, big hint for people uploading to Youtube - it gets recompressed at their end anyway...I paid attention to what taxes my computer. To make any kind of CPU usage dent, even in my ancient C2Q, it's still really only Gaming or Video encoding that taxes more than two cores. The rest of the time I could probably be a on 2C/4T machine and not notice the difference.
That's the gist of it,but no.He's basically saying that the developers do a poor job of porting (and optimizing) games to the PC from the consoles.
Flawed poll question, for reasons others have already pointed out, but also there's no way to know if/when the "next big thing" is going to come along. It could be some reason that resonates with the masses like say video editing, some bit of ground-breaking software that puts a lot more power in the layperson's hands, or some game, etc.Assume a service time of the desktop from 2019 to 2024.....and by mainstream I mean sockets like LGA 1151 and AM4, etc.