- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
*********These posts were cut off from another thread and continued here to prevent further off topic discussion in that thread *********
Faster cores are certainly possible, but speed is not the sole design factor. Efficiency goes out of the window as we overclockers already know. It would take ever more exotic materials and the exotic pricing that comes with it. Also the scaling for clock doesn't have the same scope that going wide with more cores does. More cores is pretty much copy paste, increasing cost to make. The optimal point is a balance between clock and cores. Outside of niches, most probably wouldn't benefit from say either 100 cores at 100 MHz, or a single core at say 20GHz.
I'm not saying I don't want more cores, but I do question who exactly are AMD, and now also Intel, selling these high core count (16+) CPUs to in the consumer space? A lot of individual software simply doesn't need or can scale well to massive numbers of threads, so the value for those cases is running lots of different software at the same time. It makes sense in the "pro" or server markets, but consumer? Even for those cases where high core counts are worthwhile, I think we're better served with multi-socket than trying to cram it all into one socket. Spread the power spatially, and also more sockets means more ram bandwidth, helping with the pressure there.
As for 8086k, partially agree it doesn't make sense over 8700k if you run it stock, but it does seem on average it gets you a bin more OC headroom. Might not be worth it for everyone, but it is there. I only got an average one, doing 5.2 easily, cooler than my 1700 does 4.0.
Faster cores are certainly possible, but speed is not the sole design factor. Efficiency goes out of the window as we overclockers already know. It would take ever more exotic materials and the exotic pricing that comes with it. Also the scaling for clock doesn't have the same scope that going wide with more cores does. More cores is pretty much copy paste, increasing cost to make. The optimal point is a balance between clock and cores. Outside of niches, most probably wouldn't benefit from say either 100 cores at 100 MHz, or a single core at say 20GHz.
I'm not saying I don't want more cores, but I do question who exactly are AMD, and now also Intel, selling these high core count (16+) CPUs to in the consumer space? A lot of individual software simply doesn't need or can scale well to massive numbers of threads, so the value for those cases is running lots of different software at the same time. It makes sense in the "pro" or server markets, but consumer? Even for those cases where high core counts are worthwhile, I think we're better served with multi-socket than trying to cram it all into one socket. Spread the power spatially, and also more sockets means more ram bandwidth, helping with the pressure there.
As for 8086k, partially agree it doesn't make sense over 8700k if you run it stock, but it does seem on average it gets you a bin more OC headroom. Might not be worth it for everyone, but it is there. I only got an average one, doing 5.2 easily, cooler than my 1700 does 4.0.
Last edited by a moderator: