Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Dec 12, 2020.
That's what comes to my mind reading those specs.
4 cores and 4 threads suggests a very low end processor: Intel hyper-threads everything but the bottom of the bin SKUs. It makes sense that moving from a budget part to a high end part with hyper threading would increase speed Of course since you neglected to list part number, cache size, architecture, etc. your “comparison” could be between a 5 watt quad core Cherry Trail Atom and an 8700K.
It’s nice that you think you need more than four cores, and I’m sure Intel and AMD love the huge profits they reap from consumers buying much more powerful processors than they need, but web browsing and other low impact tasks are much more heavily influenced by disk read and write speeds, memory capacity, etc. than “more cores.” I see 1-4% CPU usage with a huge number (20+) of browser windows open, and the same amount of CPU usage running games on my 4K screen (not a high refresh rate screen, 60Hz). Vulkan games often scale up to 16 cores of low to moderate usage on my system, but go no further than that.
Faster hardware does not inherently promote “advanced software.” More often than not, it promotes laziness and inefficiency. What promotes better software is very often gimmick instructions and features like AVX-512, RTX, PhysX, etc. These each have provided massive, noticeable improvements in their respective fields, and are feature set changes rather than mere speed increases.