• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Why not one really big core?

silentbogo

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
5,474 (1.44/day)
Location
Kyiv, Ukraine
System Name WS#1337
Processor Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard ASUS X570-PLUS TUF Gaming
Cooling Xigmatek Scylla 240mm AIO
Memory 4x8GB Samsung DDR4 ECC UDIMM
Video Card(s) Inno3D RTX 3070 Ti iChill
Storage ADATA Legend 2TB + ADATA SX8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) Samsung U24E590D (4K/UHD)
Case ghetto CM Cosmos RC-1000
Audio Device(s) ALC1220
Power Supply SeaSonic SSR-550FX (80+ GOLD)
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Modecom Volcano Blade (Kailh choc LP)
VR HMD Google dreamview headset(aka fancy cardboard)
Software Windows 11, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
Contrary to popular beliefs, you can multitask on 1 core... be it old athlon/duron or p3/p4.
Multitasking and Simultaneous multithreading are not the same thing.

But I think more cores arent neccessarily the solution. Imagine 1 million cores, each corse running a simple trivial task, say 1+1 or 1+2. Now this needs some managing seeing what core is free, what is running what, and what is the result of that calculation, it will need a almost a separate managing processor.
Just look at modern GPUs as an example of such constructs: they all have a dedicated hardware for scheduling and resource allocation. Like NVidia Falcon processor (not sure what arch, but the new version is going to be a slightly modified RISC-V), or whatever AMD used in GCN 4.
 
Top