But they are related today. You don't buy a one core 5Ghz 9900K, you buy eight of them. That's how you get more performance out of it.
That's why I mentioned how we got to "today". We got here because at some point investing into adding cores made more sense than investing into faster cores. That's about it.
Comparing an old days multitasking OS with the new ones, there's so much going on in the background that even on new or old application that don't take advantage of more cpu cores a proper multitasking OS will use them, like a proper OS memory management system will use the RAM for caching if you bought more ram than the applications running need.
That's a popular misunderstanding.
Programs (precisely: algorithms) are generally single-threaded by nature. It's always a sequence of instructions.
Sometimes an algorithm can be run in parallel (usually by splitting the data it works on). Someone it can't => [*].
Creating a parallel program needs extra work, so sometimes it will be written as parallel and sometimes it won't be => [*].
[*] => some programs won't use more than one core. End of story.
OS scheduler doesn't make programs run parallel. It merely assigns software threads to CPU threads.
Anyone here decide on getting a 10900k or 10700k yet?
Not my segment, but I'll probably get the 10700 if I'm forced to replace my desktop before Alder Lake.
I'm also looking forward to TVB impact, i.e. 10700 vs 10900.
2) what on earth do you need or could even USE at home with 10 gigabit ?
For the exact same reason people praise NVMe drives. Quicker access to data - this time kept remotely, not locally. Better PC experience overall.
Keep in mind some households have 4+ people. Sometimes a single person wants to watch a 4K movie, download a game on Xbox and upgade Windows.
Sometimes one person watches a movie and another one downloads a lot.
Generally speaking: the goal is to provide internet services with big headroom - to free people from worrying about compromises.
I have never used NAS, so I did not think of that. What would be stored there, that one computer could not just be the place to save it ?
Everything that doesn't fit on a typical PC drive (256GB-1TB)
+ everything that you want to access from more than 1 PC
+ everything that you want to share with other people
+ ...
Honestly, It's a file server. Do we really have to describe what servers are for?
Also, NAS is quite a bit more than just a file server.
But... even gigabit connects are like $1200 a month. I have 50/50mbit on fiber. No sense in getting a 10gigabit motherboard with less that one gigabit network access.
You're talking about high upload connection and these are more expensive in general.
Connections with lower upload are much more affordable. 1Gbps/60Mbps costs me under $20/month.
That said, I doubt I'd pay more than $100 for 1Gbps up and down.
Where did you get that $1200 from? Can you share a link to that ISP?
Comet Lake/LGA1200 is not the first platform to offer built-in 2.5 Gbps, 5 Gbps, or 10 Gbps onboard either. AM4 had a few boards offering it last year. My board supports 5 Gbps though I don't use it. I'm not using a NAS.
It's not important that we've already had motherboards with >=2.5Gbps.
What is important it will come with almost every PC - hence, becoming a standard. So we'll see 2.5Gbps NASes, 2.5Gbps switches and all that.
And ultimately, we will see consumer internet connections faster than 1Gbps. It didn't make much sense earlier.