Intel i9 officially announced

[vivster]

Ka-pi96 said:

Spindel said:

If a program is compiled/written for parallellization in you split the program into 18 pieces and run them in parallell and in theory the program will be executed/preform the task at hand in 1/18 of the time it would take if it ran on a single core (in reality you will probably run the task/execute the program in maybe 1/10 of the time compared to runing it on a single core).

Or you can run 18 different programs at once completley uninterupted each using it's own core (of course this is also in theory not taking into account bus witdh memory speeds and other possible bottlenecks outside of the CPU) 

ah thanks. This all sounds pretty useful. I'll definitely have to consider stuff like this then when I get round to buying my next PC!

If you want to use your PC for games then you should definitely avoid a high core count. Games aren't even close to be able to utilize those cores. For now it's perfectly fine to go for 4 core 8 thread CPUs with a high clock. If you like to multitask while gaming, go for 6 or 8 cores. Anything more is wasted and will actually decrease your gaming performance since CPUs with lots of cores are also lower clocked because they're packed tighter.

High core CPUs today are used in workstations and hypervisors for virtualization of many virtual machines. I pity anyone who buys an 18 core for gaming. They are server CPUs first and foremost. It's as stupid as trying to use an Nvidia Tesla for gaming.