why /g/ keeps telling me having less cores is better i dont get it

>>59134969
/g/ is probably right, because /g/ is filled with incompetent 'programmers' who can't utilize multicore CPUs to any reasonable extent.

>>59134969
Well, many processes only run on single cores, so in certain use-cases single cores are more efficient (i. e. you are only using a single thread, and on your 8 core rig, one core is overworked while seven are idle).

This is not universally the case, but it on occasion is a reason to use fewer, more powerful cores.

>>59134969
because less but poweful cores > more (but weaker) cores

File: 1487952473246.jpg (116KB, 1006x949px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1006x949px

>>59134969
Intel is shilling because AMD is making lots of cores affordable, and Intel does not want this to happen, because they might actually have to compete at that point.

>>59134969
More cores would always be better if you didn't have to give up anything else to get them. But you do, in the form of purchase price, heat/power consumption, clock speed/single-threaded performance, or some combination of these.

And the thing is for most individual computer users, these three things are all more beneficial than moar coars. If you're an exception to that rule, you know you are and why that is, so if you're asking the question, you don't want moar coars.

>>59134969
the word is fewer you illiterate nigger jew faggot

That's because you're a fucking retard. Kill yourself.

>>59134969
Because nazis made enigma machines with moar gorez so its a threat against Judaism and should be stabilized at once and all costs.

Cow2beef.exe

File: Linux.jpg (2MB, 1743x1792px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1743x1792px

>>59134969

Having more cores "automatically" means that each core is less powerful. Assuming that, generally programmers and most software makers can't multi-thread and any processing intensive activity is going to be on a single core anyways. There are distinct examples where this isn't true, but usually you are going to see one-core pinned, the second core plugging away at the OS processes and all the other cores being idle.

This is also because most programs that pin a core to max are poorly written in the first place and I would struggle to think of any program that is well written and doesn't use mutli-threading. Of course the shrills will respond with X or X doesn't really multi-thread, but I would respond why are you buying based on generalities. If you are going to use AutoCad then get a multi-core. If you are using Libre-office all day, why the fuck do you care?