Intel Allegedly Upping Its Core Counts in 'Cannonlake'

HumbleMobo · October 1, 2015

I scrolled down to this right as my boss walked around behind me. STOP IT!!! You are going to get me fired......If these stop being funny!!!!

DeScruff · October 1, 2015

But more interesting is if Intel went with a Tri Core i3 or a quad i3. With games "requiring" more than two cores, this would make the affordable i3's viable for budget builds.

Thats more of what I'd be looking for! Back in 2010 I was actually thinking the death of the Dual core desktop was upon us, and by this time all standard desktops would have quad cores.

Anyone know what was the last mainstream single core CPU was? I'm wondering how long it took for them to finally die off to dual cores.

patrickjp93 · October 2, 2015

I think the entire forum is with you on this one, buddy. I feel MMO's need to start taking advantage of more than 2 cores more than any genre. Most MMO's cater to the lowest hardware requirements in order to have the largest audience (more players means more people to probably purchase subscriptions or in-game store items, means more potential money) but it holds even the strongest hardware back. Now people with highly OC'd i7's lag just as bad as people with low end Pentiums.

Guild Wars 2 is a great example of this. No matter how much hardware you throw at it, you will always lag at a large boss fight. Even if you lower graphic settings, you will still lag. Seeing as my GPU is hardly touched in the game, it is easy to see its based on the CPU, and the way the game was coded to handle the logic and AI. If they would leverage more cores to handle different tasks, it would be better all around. In GW2, my brothers GTX 970 and 4690k lags just as bad as my G3258 and GTX 770, and even that lags just as bad as my A10 4600m laptop. Here's to hoping the DX12 rumors were true, and we start seeing DX12 MMO's removing the CPU overhead.

Well if people didn't use Visual Studio as their development environment for the bulk of their code, this would be quite simple. GCC, Clang, and ICC all support code multiversioning. You can separate out code paths to each take advantage of more and more recent extensions. The newer the extensions, the faster the code runs. And with OpenMP you can build a dynamically scaling multithreaded code base with ease (Game starter template on my LTT blog). If you must use Direct X, use VS to compile only that code. Build everything else with a better compiler (that produces 30%+ faster binaries anyway) and then use VS to link the object files together into the final executable. Hell you could implement the DX side of it as a library (dll) and have the executable portion made under Clang/ICC (GCC does not work on windows platforms except through an emulation layer like MinGW, and as for not being able to use ICC b/c it doesn't play nicely with AMD/VIA processors, you can change the instruction dispatcher with a patch to the compiler).

It's not like this is actually difficult to do. 1 HPC class and I can smoke at least 3/4 of game programmers trying to do multithreading natively under C/C++/C#.

patrickjp93 · October 2, 2015

Thats more of what I'd be looking for! Back in 2010 I was actually thinking the death of the Dual core desktop was upon us, and by this time all standard desktops would have quad cores.

Anyone know what was the last mainstream single core CPU was? I'm wondering how long it took for them to finally die off to dual cores.

IDK if Core 2 had any single-core mainstreams or if those were the lower end Pentium/Celeron only. I know the Pentium IV before that had mainstream single cores.