CPUCores

>>60917704
If you're using GNU/Linux then it's pretty much just the total processing power across all cores that matter.

The same is mostly true for Windows too, that picture is kind of stupid because both Chrome/Chromium and Firefox will distribute evenly across all cores these days.

If you're using Windows and you play older games that haven't gotten any updates in years or a few poorly written newer ones then single core performance matters and in this particular case it's fair to say that multi-core is just a scam.

>>60917704
Of course it's a scam, any OS should be able to prioritise adequately to reach similar results.

This program will give you, at most, +5fps.

Also, >>>/v/

It used to be worthwhile on older systems that had lots of lower power cores, say for example something like a Phenom II.

However, with window's latest updates it now automatically does what CPUCores does so... I guess he lost his job to a robot.

File: 1488736709698.jpg (774KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1080x1080px

>any OS should be able to magically create raw processing power when the processor is fully loaded
So if you had one core, and one program using 100% CPU time, the OS should be able to magically create more power?

No, it will throttle the program that's using all the CPU time to let other things run. So it's throttling programs, which by definition makes them slower. So you admit single core CPUs are slower when you actually use the CPU.