News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by BatFastard on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:44AM (#12304196)
I agree with the "less core but faster processors are what is most useful on desktops".

But I ask, has anyone one or any language made the number of processors/hyperthreads transparent? Ideally I would just create a thread and some load balancing system would distribute it to the correct processor. Am I just behind the times?

Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by gpderetta on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:58AM (#12304279)
scratches head isn't that how the scheduler of any semi-modern operating system work?
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by toyg on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @09:09AM (#12304362)
Uh, that's what happens...? In Windows 2012, the new feature is actually that you can explicitly stop the OS doing that, by forcing specific processes to specific cores only.

The issue people have, usually, is about which process should have priority when (inevitably) more than one are competing for the same processor -- a question that has different answers depending on your particular type of workload.

Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by virmundi on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:45AM (#12304201)
On a small number of cores Erlang does this. That's why actors can be in the thousands and still performant.
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by akavel on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:58AM (#12304289)
Also Go language.
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by bluedino on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @09:17AM (#12304407)
9 women still can't have 1 baby in 1 month.
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by netheril96 on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @09:42AM (#12304590)
Ha? Isn't that how it always works?