What if I told you we are approaching 32 cores and what is next is 64 cores?

What if I told you we are approaching 32 cores and what is next is 64 cores?

ok

Are most programs using more than 4 cores these days ?

what if I told you I dont care

immutable data structures allow for concurrency by default

What if I told you I run a Beowulf cluster of Sparc M7-16s with a total of 256 cores and 2048 threads all to shitpost on Sup Forums?

What if I told you that I can achieve the same effect simply by posting one anime girl?

I actually have used my companies "Bridge Troll" to shitpost on Sup Forums with a gold pass back when there was no timer for gold members.

I don't know its specs, but I know they spent upwards of 20000 dollars on it.

Didn't really make me a better spammer.

You need to learn to utilize the extra power first. Wait for Threadripper.

what if I told you that all I really want is FASTER CLOCK SPEED!!!!!!!!!!

GODDAMMIT I WANT FASTER CLOCK SPEED! NOT MORE CORES. SOME THINGS CAN NOT BE PARALLELIZED. PERIOD.

cd linux-stable
git pull
make silentoldconfig
make -j64


my body is ready

what if i told u physics says no

Physics can't talk

What if i told u physics is what allows me to talk

>He doesn't listen for the voice of God in radio static

I'd call you a liar and a fool

What if I told you functional programming lets you use every core

What if I told you my daughter does porn.

What if I told you that telling me would be performing IO?

Spread my next action across 32 threads oh enlightened one.

Something already instruction perfect cannot be further optimised by spreading the workload if the effort to compile the data would take more cycles than just running the task.

Also, have you looked at the guts of windows? THat could be infinitely optimised.

Adding more threads isn't going to magically optimize an OS. They could optimize the current version of windows and it still wouldn't come close to maxing out a quad-core. Using 1% of 32 cores seems pointless to me.
And I don't even think windows needs further optimization, just debugging. It takes longer for my bios delay than it does to boot my OS.

Begone, ghost of NetBurst.

i'll be right back

Every programmer will speak like tschernovich from now on. With a lisp.

I'm saying if you were to write it properly then more threads would fucking help, with all that shit going on in the background.

kys netburst

I would say your black ass is behind couple years

> SOME THINGS CAN NOT BE PARALLELIZED.

You're wrong there kiddo, just admit you're a brainlet and can't figure it out.

MAKEOPTS=-j65 emerge -avuDN @world

He's right, though, not all things can be parallelized.

What if I told you that line was never in the movie?

AMD Promothean 32c/64t @3.6ghz on LGA 4094 q2 2018. You seen it here first.

What if I told you the 32-core will cost $1700?

1699. Intel is fucked.

Fuck all these multicore shit i just want a 20ghz pentium 5

Kys yourself.

You first first

love and peace

higher clock speed when?

dumb frogposter

Cease to exist, retard.

see

Tejas is dead. Sorry, bro.

Not gonna happen. Technological progress has been halted for about the past 10-20 years (not sure exactly when). All we can do is add more coars and try to distribute tasks but no real advancements will come until we figure out why they stopped.

>inb4 someone tells me about some technological progress
Meme startup ideas and shit don't count. Facebook is not technological progress. A "better" phone is not progress. Things are changing much much slower than they should be right now.

The silicon era is fucking over but people are too autistic to let it go.

Well everything still defaults to core 0 anyway so one program at 100% will kill my system.

But yeah great, more cores.

...

SINGLE CORE IS ALL YOU NEED

I'm not kidding though. Main system IO and such still runs through core 0. Peg your primary core with as much as you can and your system will stutter and lock.

There is an alternate timeline where we have single-core 200ghz systems.

It has to be glorious.

what do you mean? We already have 64-bit systems

> 64 1-bit cores

There is an alternate timeline where we have processors with ∞GHz

Didn't happen. My system was fine. Get an OS not from the prehistoric era.

>in b4 "it was on two cores"
It's SMT, doofus.

You fell for the bait. Maybe subconscious bait.

Run something that generates system interrupts and get back to me.

If you actually looked at the larger part of the Windows source code, you‘d think Linux is programmed by children. After looking at the source in school, I installed Windows next day.

>After looking at the source in school

What school let you look at the Windows source code? Hogwarts?

>this question is brought up in every thread about cores
>no one ever mentions that more cores = more programs running simultaneously more effectively

Just replace "programs" with "muy gaymes" for accurate translation.

Pretty much. If you're not playing games and your application is not multi-threaded then you can just divide the workload manually and run six, twelve, thirty-two or however many instances you need to speed things up.

This was the source code leak way back when, not any official class. Just friends being illegal. The code is probably a lot different now, but people were talking the same shit about Windows then as they do now. But the code was magnificent, and if Microsoft could actually open source Windows they could give Windows a better reputation.