cores

>>62155554
-1.

When you cluster an operation, as many as you can afford. But, on one chip.. 24 physical cores. See POWER9.

Something something GPU's

>>62155621
AMD's new EPYC chips coffee with up to 32 cores on one chip; note that it is four 8 core dies MCMed together.

AMD: infinity cores
Intel: 16 cores? what do you need 10 cores for? best I can do is 8 cores. POLICE HELP THIS MAN IS ATTACKING ME OVER 4 CORES

>>62155621
B-but in-tel has 4 cores just as good as h-having 6 or 8 on-n A-a-a m-d

>>62155554
34.

9001

File: EEdKeXN.jpg (153KB, 558x695px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 558x695px

>>62156943
Pretty much.
Need I remind you of AMD's 8 core CPU with subpar performance?

32-cores @ 1ghz which then sequentially degrade as more cores are used..

vs

4-cores @ 4ghz which are all consistently good.

Ok so we've come from having hundreds/thousands of transistors in the 1970's to billions in current cpus. Once they started having tons of transistors per chip they divided the chips into cores. What happens when we start to have millions on cores per cpu? What will the next level be?

>>62159122
Single-chip clusters of multiple SoCs linked together over on-chip Ethernet

>>62158999
>trips
But my oc

>>62155554
More than you can dream of

>>62155554
Depends on the workload. If it's 95% parallel, you'll see no benefit with more than 4096 cores. If it's 90% parallel, you get maximum benefit at 512 cores.

File: 1438729894108.gif (182KB, 384x408px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 384x408px

>>62160278
>Single-chip clusters of multiple SoCs linked together over on-chip Ethernet
Muh dik

>>62155554
Knight's Landing is basically a 72 core x86 chip.
It's shit by the way.

>>62158999
>bulldozer erratas are appliable to Zen