XPost: alt.lang.asm   
   From: nowhere@nevernet.at   
      
   On 07/12/2021 14:02, Rod Pemberton wrote:   
   >   
   > Hey guys, I'm curious, what features do you look for in an x86   
   > processor?   
   >   
   > How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a   
   > processor's performance?   
   >   
   > clock speed   
   > cache size   
   > unlocked cores   
   > number of cores   
   >   
   > I would probably rank them as listed above.   
   >   
   > For a long time now, I've been really happy with an unlocked processor.   
   > The unlocked nature of the processor means it doesn't usually grind   
   > away at a task for a long time, but it finishes in a quick blip, even   
   > though it's only a dual-core.   In other words, it seems that processor   
   > speed - both raw clock speed and extra speed from the unlocked cores -   
   > is far more important than having more cores.  From earlier processors,   
   > it seemed that a bigger cache was the next biggest improvement after   
   > clock speed.  But, of course, this processor is a decade or so old now.   
   > I'm sure you guys have moved on to newer hardware.  What are your   
   > thoughts on this?  Has much changed in regards to this over the past   
   > decade?   
      
   power consumption became an issue now.   
   the fastest CPU is pretty worthless if Bus/Ram/IO are slow.   
   more cores than real existing physical memory channels are useless.   
   So I use only two respective four cores and power down the rest.   
   larger LVL1 cache would be fine but eat more power and money too.   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)