News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by raverbashing on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @11:43AM (#11345457)
More cores = more silicon (expensive)

You can turn hyperthreading on if possible

There's probably a narrow set of workloads that would benefit from more slower cores than 4 faster ones

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by arielweisberg on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @01:39PM (#11346558)
They are already shipping the silicon. There is as much real estate in the GPU as in the CPU. They could drop the GPU and have 8 cores in the same diameter. There are a legion of other issues with that many cores, but die space isn't one of them.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by maaku on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @12:09PM (#11345715)
make -j
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by raverbashing on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @12:12PM (#11345738)
Hopefully with an SSD but I'd guess it's still IO bound
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by maaku on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @12:51PM (#11346136)
Depends on the language I'm sure. Compiling C++ is definitely not I/O bound. I have a 14-core build system that achieves approx linear scaling speedup over my dual core laptop.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by JoshTriplett on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @04:29PM (#11347946)
Not at all; I've seen parallel builds remain CPU-bound on 72-way and 144-way systems.

The biggest bottleneck tends to be linking steps and other serialized items. (And those are getting better too; gcc's current linker supports parallelization using -j, integrated with make.)