I really believe in that. We used to have 4 cores in 2012 plus and this is slightly different than 2 cores (hardware cryptorgaphy in 2012th processor was more noticeable for me than extra cores). Modern processors eats significantly less energy and can hold significantly more of RAM and that's all I can notice.
We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable.
BTW, for modern multitasking computers, the main jump in performance comes from going from a single processor to dual processor. Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference.
> What you can notice is not real information when speed, cores and energy use can be quantified.
Single-core performance is totally the same, the number of cores does not change anything visible and energy use seems like the only outcome of 10 years spent from 2012.
We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable.
This is nonsense
Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference.
Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck. This sounds like desperate pessimism.
Single-core performance is totally the same,
This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it.
the number of cores does not change anything visible
Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing.
Core 2 duo Quad from 2007+ used to have 2 L2 cashes (not 4) and no L3 and task manager of Windows refused to see more than 2 cores, but for some rare tasks Quad was perfect such as playing GTA4. That is just my memories, feel free to correct me if you see me mistaken.
> Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck.
Everything except of browser is not multithreaded in 2023, for example a garbage collecting of interpreted languages.
> This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it.
I have a heavy single-threaded application which I need to run 24/7 and I still use Pentium 4 because no modern computer can make it 2x faster.
> Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing.
I mean starting from 2 cores the number of cores does not add anything visible.
Core 2 duo Quad from 2007+ used to have 2 L2 cashes (not 4) and no L3 and task manager of Windows refused to see more than 2 cores
This is software has nothing to do with your claims of hardware not advancing or four cores being 'unstable'. I don't know what it has to do with anything.
Everything except of browser is not multithreaded in 2023
This is a bizarre claim because it's so easy to disprove. Games, content creation video encoding and decoding and of course, your whole OS which is running multiple programs.
This also has nothing to do with amdahl's law, which is about how non-multithreaded parts of multithreaded software scales.
for example a garbage collecting of interpreted languages.
Who cares, an interpreted language is not meant to be fast in the first place. Even so you can still run multiple threads and multiple processes.
This is also software and has nothing to do with your claim that CPUs haven't changed since 2012.
I mean starting from 2 cores the number of cores does not add anything visible.
They do to everyone buying CPUs with more than 2 cores, which is basically everyone, since even phones and $35 rasberry pi boards have four or more cores.
You have written a lot of responses about why am I a little wrong on every my sentence but I don't see any powerful point. What is the most important feature of post-2012 CPU and except of energy consuming?
Pretty much everything you said was not only wrong, it didn't even have anything to do with your point.
What is the most important feature of post-2012 CPU and except of energy consuming?
They are faster per clock cycle, run at higher frequencies, have more cores, more memory bandwidth, more pcie bandwidth, wider SIMD lanes, deeper out of order buffers, much more cache and more execution units.
> They are faster per clock cycle, run at higher frequencies, have more cores, more memory bandwidth, more pcie bandwidth, wider SIMD lanes, deeper out of order buffers, much more cache and more execution units.
This is called extensive progress, no intensive developing since 2012 as it was mentioned before I have joined discussion. You are completely wrong about frequency (no increase since Haswell's 4Ghz) and somewhat boring about other points so I will not answer here any more.
This is called extensive progress, no intensive developing since 2012
This is a word salad that means nothing. Where did you even get these ideas?
You are completely wrong about frequency (no increase since Haswell's 4Ghz)
Why would you say something that is so obviously wrong and easy to disprove? Most current AMD cpus have base clocks that are higher than 4ghz, let alone their boost clocks.
