there is literally no reason to have more than 1 core most programs

>>59181664
This! I only buy Intel because they have the best performance in real applications that real people use!

I mean this is an obvious shitpost but I like it because it's going to pise lf the "ahmdels ler mens no mor core" guy

I think it reasonable to have second core, just in case.

>>59181678
piss off**

>Phoneposting on a bus with autocorrect disabled

>>59181689
Pussy.

>>59181689
intel cpus are so reliable, why bother?

>>59181689
Agreed. What if the first core catches a cold and needs to stay in bed for a day or two? You gotta have a backup plan.

>>59181721
What if we put a small CPU on the GPU so it can take over

>>59181760
An iCPU in the GPU, eh?

Corelet speaks

>>59181664
>most programs and games aren't even multi-threaded

What is this, 2010?

>>59181939
>suggesting we will get multi-threaded programs in less than 3 years

instead of 4 cores at 3.6 ghz why don't they make one core at 14.4 ghz?

>>59181664
I agree
For me it's either one core or eight
Because of the binary scale obviously. It's like with car engines.

>>59182340
transistors don't switch that fast anon

>>59181664
lol/10