>but my single-thread performance >But the single-thread

>>59081224
While most programs generally use two threads these days. Most of the normie shit uses only a single one... Since people are usually stuck with programs like that 80% of the time, single thread performance is important to them.

>>59081317
>Most of the normie shit uses only a single one
Thats literally fucking wrong. There is not one new application/big game that i know about that uses only one core

Large amount of tasks just don't get parallelized easily. It's not a matter of when the program was written. Single thread performance is important.

>>59081331
You don't know much in general so that can't be used as an argument.

>>59081331
>that I know of

>>59081356
>>59081360
Examples pls

>>59081224
>>59081331
>>59081673
You are literally mentally challenged. CPUs are by definition serial machines. They will ALWAYS need single-thread performance unless you ONLY do offline operations like pure offline encoding or video reconding or something simplistic like that. When you go to interactive applications like a game or the desktop there is ALWAYS a global loop involved per program and that will always need serial performance.
You children have to stop with that stupid meme.
It's literally the meme AMD tried to pull last time.

>>59081317
Even that meme is wrong. It's not that we are "not there yet". We will ALWAYS not be there yet when there is interactivity involved.
This is because there is always a global loop involved in those cases that must adhere to mutex locks.
The pretense that CPUs can be fully parallelised llike a GPU is a stupid meme that can die.

File: tmp_24525-14855104867511078092014.png (442KB, 500x712px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 500x712px

>>59081224
>frogposters
Are you all stuck with using memes from 2016 or something?

>>59081224
JavaScript and all modern web garbage absolutely requires good single thread performance. And don't forget the Amdahl's law.

>>59081713
You are saying this like Ryzen has the worst single-thread performance on the planet. The single-thread performance of 1800 is enough ( dunno about 1700x and 1700)to the point where in programs that use more cores than 4 will crush the intels in its price-tag.

>>59081792
their meme is against a cherry picked intel that only runs on 3.2Ghz with a turbo of 3.7Ghz. That's laughable. Most people here run their intel routinely and daily at least on 4.6Ghz.

>>59081792
He said "last time". Ryzen looks breddy good, especially with all that OC potential.

File: 4213432112142.png (527KB, 678x417px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 678x417px

>>59081809
>Most people here run their intel routinely and daily at least on 4.6Ghz.
Most people here probably render a 1080p 10min video using a CPU in 5 hours

>>59081809
>Most people here run their intel routinely and daily at least on 4.6Ghz.
Thats stil lower than Ryzen :^)

File: 1483083362586.png (222KB, 225x421px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 225x421px

>>59081713
The people saying that single-thread performance doesn't matter are the same retards who say that more cores doesn't mean shit.

>>59081734
I didn't say that it can't be done, just that most developers would rather cut costs and development time than make a multiple thread program.

>>59081864
Are you literally mentally challenged? With Liquid Nitrogen mine runs at 6Ghz. Jesus fucking christ, do you even know Nitrogen tests *KILL* those CPUs routinely?

>>59081900
Yes. Also the cache matters. But at the end of the day, balance is needed.
The overwhelming majority need BOTH a good threads but max 3-4.

>>59081923
You didn't get it. I didn't say it can be done. I claim interactive will always require single thread performance.
Only purely 100% offline parallelism can get away with slow as fuck cores, say background encoding.

>>59081331
Most of the PC users are in the business sector. Most of these users use computers for text editing, excel calculations and database entry/recall. All of these functions can be basically done with the processing power of modern day appliances (yes, fucking modern coffee machines and washing machines) so there is no reason for them to unnecessarily waste time and money to make multi-thread programs.

>>59081993
Oooh. My bad, missed the mark completely. Yes I agree.

>>59081317
Oh wait, do you mean you dont know how multicore multithreaded cpus work?
Got it.

>>59081317
You are embarasing yourself.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar_processor
Read it all and stop this foul spectacle.

>>59081224
I am. Thank goodness people here care for my needs.

>>59082021
You know Ryzen or Bulldozer or i5s.i7s arent meant for those old guys working on excel 24/7?

>>59081331
Core=/=Thread

No modern day GUI application is single threaded, imagine having no ability to use your web browser while it's downloading a file, that's what using a single thread application is like.

>>59082021
>Most of these users
Get stuffed you fagot.
What about oil, designing all the fucking hardware you are using in your stupid cell phone, mining, medical, civil engineering, flight, nautical, shit im even throwin entertainment like hollywood and making games.

Are you this retarded?
Really?