Single cores ARE effective at light workloads. But, not for a do everything device like a PC. You couldn't clock a core fast enough, or the design of the core would be SO incredibly complex because it would have to be doing about 10 instructions per clock cycle for today's PC users to be content with it. What he didn't talk about is just how many processes a modern PC is running at any given time, and it doesn't matter that most of them are light tasks. What matters is how many threads get generated by all these light tasks, to where if you're doing something heavy, the CPU would constantly have to swap out that heavy task to do lightweight tasks and every time you do that it's a big penalty hit, and THAT is why modern PCs have or should have at least 4 core/8 thread CPUs. And of course that doesn't even begin to be good enough anymore for newer games that can load a 5950X (32 threads) to 40% (Matrix Awakens based on UE5 using Lumen and the other main effect it uses). 40% of a 16c/32t CPU = 160% of a 4c/8t CPU if everything else is the same, meaning the CPU is always a bottleneck, by a LOT. Economics dictate that modern PCs have CPUs that have cores that aren't overly complicated or have to run 3X the speed they do today which is LITERALLY impossible because the higher the clock speed the higher the resistance (reactance) in the circuit which means they turn into a fireball. So better to have many cores that can run slower, use less electricity, and you can process many threads at the same time. Designing a core that could run more than 2 threads is basically the same thing as adding more cores, but it's much more complicated. And while modern ICs made by TSMC or Samsung or Intel where the increase in resistance is non-linear, through most of the frequency range that companies use it LOOKS linear. It's on a part of a curve that looks more flat. That's one of those neat things about exponential growth. The curve is changing at a different rate along the curve, but you can have part of that curve near the vertex that looks linear for a time period because the change is small. And that's what happens in an electrical circuit with a clock signal. The clock acts like an AC circuit and the higher the frequency, the greater the resistance. The greater the resistance, the more power is consumed to HEAT, and not to powering the circuit ever faster.

Kinda bizarre he didn't cover that seeing as it was a big reason for going multi-core in the first place as clock speed and IPC improvements became less and less each generation.

@@alexatkin yes they hit a wall at around 5 gigherts. a wall they still face today but thanks to stacking cores they kind of worked around it.

I'd say IPC is more important than speed

@@blaze909 yes, ipc is very important. Increasing the ipc of a single core compared to multiple cores will increase the speed likewise to adding more clocks (more instructions per clock compared to more clocks). I don't know as much of how ipc affects pier consumption though, compared to core counts. The main point was that I had though Linus said this before, and that I knew increasing clock speeds was non linear so you get more performance per watt out of adding cores compared to clocks.

I believe they still call it Fast As Possible or "FAP" internally (cause it's funny). That's my guess as to why he slipped on the name.

4:52 That's how they added the caption: What year is it? :)

The name is Linux

@@captainkeyboard1007 ?

When did that stop being the name?

​@DMONEYINDUSTRY and my mom says i am the dumbest person, glad i found one of my kind

hardcore

Not really I knew it wouldn't work, CPUs have multiple cores for a good reason.

Okay dad

@@bomb00000 Lets end this thread already

You ok bud?

Lmao😂 Dude I almost spit out my drink that was funny

For anybody wondering this comment was most likely made when this entire channel got hacked such as how the Linus Tech Tips KZfaq Channel got hacked. I don't need to really explain anything besides search up Tesla Scam Hack or something related to that and you will probably find videos about it.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@RageyRage82guess you didn’t hear about the incident

What was the channel name before they got hacked? Techquicky? Ltt has so many channels now that I can't remember

@@michaelrichter2528 Yes, TechQuickie

What happen to linus tech tips channel.

@@fikrilatib8275 Linus was so nice and gave Elon Musk himself the opportunity to give back to the community by doubeling their crypto. /s Joke aside, their channel got hacked by scammers. This has happened before to another channel i watch in the exact same manner.

@@fikrilatib8275 it’s been hacked. The main channel has been terminated, though I’ve heard it’s being restored

I remember rumors back in the day on the other hand that the military or a university or something bought a ton of them to make a supercomputer.

@@Zyo117 Those rumours were true, it was a military supercomputer for image analysis purposes. The hardware was a downright bargain compared to more 'traditional' image processing hardware.

@@Zyo117 Those were actually real. The Air Force had one called "Condor Cluster" and the University of Massachusetts had one that studied black holes

well, coprocessors are (I believe) older than half of a century, and by "definition" they are _specialized_, thus I'm not sure, if PS3 had "anything anyone had ever seen before"

@@Zyo117 There was actually a supercomputer made by the US Air Force (1760 of them)

Considering how poorly Windows 10 Pro runs on a Celeron (1 core, 2 threads), I can't imagine it goes well...

I've done it with a 5800x3d... its surprisingly fine and can handle quite a few applications at once (as long as you don't launch any games)

@@DJSekuHusky pentium 4 was faster than celeron d because more cache

It's already possible to limit the cores in certain motherboards and test per individual

@enrique amaya RAOTFLMFAO.

NetBurst(IntoFlames)

L🤭L Inhell Combustible Furnace Inside 🌚💥

The first few iterations of Pentium 4, a.k.a. Willamette and Northwood, were moderately successful. However with Prescott, Intel tried to accelerate toward 10 GHz, only to run into a wall at 3.8 GHz because of power and heat. AMD took advantage of this misstep, and Intel had to take a “right-hand turn” with the lower-clocked Nehalem.

NetBurst was a fast core, not a huge core. A huge core would be massively parallel, almost like multiple cores

It wasn't that big of a core. If anything, it was very underbuilt, particularly in terms of branch prediction logic which was the cause of pipeline stalls that made for poor efficiency (the P4 had a much longer pipeline than the P3, so a stall carried a much bigger performance penalty). A huge core would get much more done per clock and wouldn't have hit 3.8Ghz on the nodes of the day. Conroe's release in 2006 represented a shift back to efficient cores with shorter pipelines and lower clock speeds. Intel later returned to long pipelines with Nehalem but the nodes were small enough this time to devote much more logic to cache and branch prediction and finally allowed Intel to combine the efficiency benefits of the P6 architecture with the raw throughput potential of NetBurst now that pipeline stalls were exponentially less common.

Lol

Same thing for Kerbal Space Program

Ask the developers to rewrite the code to make use of more cores.

​​@@alexandruilea915 This is not always possible. Not every algorithm can be parallelized.

Also Minecraft lol

You might joke, but I honestly think that this is the logical next step for the big.LITTLE designs. I think CPUs should come with another tier of performance cores. There should be at least one or two "Big Chungus" cores that get preferential priority for single-threaded tasks. But they'd need to do it as a chiplet design, because of the obvious economical drawbacks of wafer fabrication. If they're on their own chiplet, not only would they be easier to fab, but they'd be easier to load up with tons of cache on those chiplets (without requiring 3D v-cache) so they can totally obliterate single-threaded tasks. Intel has big.LITTLE, but AMD has chiplets. When both companies start to bridge that gap and combine the technologies, I would really hope that we see this happen. I want chungus cores. I need chungus cores. My copy of Photoshop demands it.

more lanes actually just means more vehicles able to park on the highway in the real world, it doesnt end up increasing throughput much, just acts as a buffer

@@mycosys In real world, you're not allowed to park on the highway. 😂

People are still gonna go to the race track on the weekend

Of course no one is safe from being hacked.

@@vectoralphaAI well duh, but you might think that these guys have at least 2FA

Depends, my use tends to be harder on memory than on CPU. Doesn't mean I don't have two 12 core PCs though. :D

nah. just one big core.

Would love to see what would be possible if we only had 1 extreme core , like 1 core 15ghz 😂

The diminishing returns past 4 cores still largely applies unless software is very well written for it. Having insane core counts is often useless for gaming but the reason intel was the gaming king and stuck with 4 cores for soo long was it made sense. Some workloads like web servers, video editing and some scientific workloads can parallelize really well but most cant so outside of the windows background junk needing some time it is really about the main program and if it multithreads well. It would be good to see a performance analysis on low core count vs high core count CPUs in the same generation/architecture with the same cooling as it relates to a variety of games and workloads.

@@keagantomlnson6942 15ghz would not be possible due to thermal limitations. But you could increase the number of instructions per clock cycle You would still be limited on the size of the core.

not it hasnt,you still have a clock limit its just higher now,back in the day they thought we would have 10ghz cpus by now

@metalspider I was thinking more hypothetically about how far technology has come since the early 2000's That a single chip could be made more advanced now. But it would be impractical as Linus said. I remember my second PC a Dell 8300. Had a single core Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading. For the time when I bought it in 2004. It was nice and fast. But yeah my current PC was built in 2017 and I put a 6th Gen i7 in it and it still holds up well today.

@@SchardtCinematic You don't think they are trying to make the fastest cores they can? They already are, man. There are already high performance + low power usage designs that would fit perfect with higher speed cores but their designs with that.... just use the same cores they already have. If they could make faster single cores, I guarantee you they wouldn't let AMD take the lead on gaming CPUs.

Technology on the X86 architecture has not drastically changed, the individual cores of nowadays CPUs are as advanced as you can get. A "big single core" instead of 4 smaller cores does not actually make any sense. I oversimplify a bit, but once your core contains all the needed components to execute a program (arithmetic unit, logical unit, control unit, memory unit) it is done and there is little you can add to improve its performance. Now if you put 4 of each unit into the core in order to be able to process 4 programs at once you effectively have a 4 cores CPU in disguise which bears the same programming and usage constraints as any other 4 core CPU. If you want a single core to do the same amount of processing as 4 cores you need to run it at 4 times the frequency (ignoring memory latency issues). Now physics are pretty inflexible in this matter, to increase 4 times the frequency, you need to increase the voltage and thus power consumption by 16, which is basically impossible to cool. The common workaround is to replace cores with multiple cores at a lower frequency allowing more theoretical processing power per watt, GPUs are a perfect example of this but CPUs also follow that trend (e-cores in intel, ARM processors such as the M1...) because there simply is currently no other feasible way to get more performance.

​@@mtlspider Confounding that projection even further is the fact that it was the mid-2000s (and explicitly when AMD started being competitive and x86_64 started taking off) that we saw some great innovations that caused major leaps in the computations performed per clock cycle. So clock speeds may have not gone up hugely in between my 3.7GHz Phenom II and my later 4.4GHz Haswell, but _for sure as heck_ that newer Intel chip beat the pants off my old AMD CPU.

*_Always sunny in Philadelphia theme plays_*

HAHAHAHAHA Never thought that would happen... Red face moment...

Hogwarts Legacy, only 4 threads. 2007 Crysis, also 4 threads (or two?).

Linus does a great job in the video highlighting how even *two* cores was game-changing, because when one thread locked up the other could still execute commands (notably, as I recall, killing the zombie thread)

But using just one core for a game can effect the performance negatively... 🙄

Most modern titles will use at least four cores. There are a number of games that run faster on 8 or more cores. Some games start stuttering or don't launch at all on anything smaller than a quadcore CPU. Current consoles allow games to use 6.5 cores (with SMT), so you can expect game devs to program with that in mind.

@@Steamrick There is no reason those 6.5 or 8 threads or whatever couldnt be scheduled on a single core, the issue is technology limits. I guarantee you that other impractical limitations aside, a single 32 ghz core of same architecture would be faster than 8x4ghz ones for gaming, in the same vain if they could practically do half as many twice as fast cores, that would be better too.

AAAAAH

Ha! Love that!

Ba Dum Tss

Please leave.

🗣📢 "Taxi for SavagePro"

Bro fr. These are THE tech guys. If they got hacked then nobody is safe.

@@perpetualcollapse Doesn't mean they're interested in cyber security.

@@akaEch0 Have you seen their videos? Cope.

@@perpetualcollapse I don't think that word means what you think it means.

@@akaEch0 I like how you didn’t answer my question. Cope. 😂 They’ve done lots of cybersecurity videos on their other channels and talk about hacks on TechLinked. You’re probably part of the scammers.

It will be back in 2 days dw

Yeah

true!

i think they might delete them soon

Fr 💀

thats something intel is doing with there ecores.

HAHAHA

They stole my cat and ruined my vintage pokemon card collection, damn crypto burgles

...you got hacked.

​@@Miss_ClaireHodl you will get 100 cat return on your 1 cat investment

It is very expensive, which is why Microsoft introduced the concept of fibers on top of threads/processes. Multiple fibers operate within the same execution context and are guaranteed to be on the same executing hardware which greatly saves on the context switching. Then Microsoft went and added tens more processes with every revision of their Operating System, making the overall efficiency plummet yet again. Add in browsers such as chrome doing the same and we now often have a process per tab. I'm not doing much on this PC but have about 20 tabs open and the process count is 275 with 3900 threads. This is Windows 10, Windows 11 typically adds another 20-30 processes over Windows 10.

Negative. If that were true you would see multiple cows having greater than N times the performance (n being the number of cores). What you actually see is less efficiency, even when the tasks scale almost perfectly.

@@SlyNine What are you disagreeing with? Multiple cores reduce the context switching requirements of a single core, but as long as a given core is running multiple processes then context switching is going to happen anyway. The operational efficiency comes from multiple processes genuinely executing at the same time which does improve performance. Communication between processes or access to shared resources is a different matter and lots of amateur developers make the most basic of mistakes on this and produce very inefficient code as a result. Single thread applications are much easier to develop, attempting to retro-fit multi-thread execution into an existing application is incredibly difficult.

the original paper proposing SMT actually tried up to 8 threads. You can read it here if you want: www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/SMT_Eggers.pdf

Because we don't need it, what a 2nd thread allows is to have the core busy all the time by filling the gaps in the 1st thread.

Because that cpu-thread isn't running parallel to each other. The purpose of hyper-threading is to reduce cpu idle time while the currently running process waits for say, user input or to get data from your drive. While one process is doing that, the cpu can easily switch to another process run. Adding a third (or more threads) is going to increase the complexity of the cpu by __a lot__ while not adding that much benefit. If you straight out have MORE cores, then you can actually have processes running at the exact same time, instead of just waiting the other one to finish.

The reasons listed above are valid but I do recall having heard of I think AMD making a quad SMT CPU but that was awhile ago, maybe it was just some baseless rumor before Zen came out idk.

I was thinking about like, One really chunky core and 8 threads

Yes, Elon was Linus this whole time.

It will be back in 2 days dw

Wait that was one month ago!!!

The tradeoffs of P/E (or ARM's big-little) would make a great video. But every time I see folks hyping up Tensor cores and other dedicated AI co-processors I can't help but think, "Whatever happened to PhysX?"

​@@GSBarlev I've heard a lot of folks say that PhysX is terrible from both an accuracy and performance standpoint. I haven't done any real research on it though.

Most servers have more multitasking, not less. And when you get to HPC, most problems couldn’t be handled on a single core anyway, so you’re back to writing algorithms that can take advantage of multiple CPUs.

@@grn1 I think the main thing that makes PhysX unappealing is the fact that it’s NVidia-only, meaning that using it for anything other than visual effects effectively limits your target audience as a game developer.

*EDIT:* I think that is no longer the case.

Clickbait.

yes it is the firts ltt video that i downvoted becous of it. I was hoping for an expanation of per core licensing and or FPGA gpu emulation or somting other cool thing that i never heard of.

Is this his main channel?

@@blaat44 LTT got hacked but it got taken down by KZfaq after an hour. TQ and other LMG channels are currently also hacked. Someone with access to multiple accounts clicked on a shady link or downloaded a shady program I guess.

​​@@perpetualcollapse I have olso heard hackers use chrome extensions to stel all passwords when using chrome.

@@perpetualcollapse It's kinda weird though, it's just 8:30 AM there (LTT was hacked when prob. no one was working in LMG yet), so I guess just bruteforce but we will see.

Lets prey that linus gets his channel back

Bro is this techquickie?

This video's time here is numbered

@@ojaskumar521 Yes, before the hack.

@@FatherManus God damn

Return of the King

But it can't run Windows or any other conventional software.

@MenaceInc well it aint linux neither. IBM machines are designed for unix in mind.

I was surprised to read this--you'd think 3D applications would be *ideal* for multiprocessing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my five minute Google it sounds like the culprit is that all modern CAD still inherits from the 40-year-old base code of *AutoCAD*

@@GSBarlev yea it is a little odd. It is kind of like how gaming is very single core/single threaded in most cases. While it would benefit from multicore, it would benefit even more from cache or gpu improvements more.

@@GSBarlev probably the same reason enterprise motherboards often include serial ports. Legacy baby.

@@mrgumbook serial ports are needed a lot in a professional environment. A ton of older and newer devices use it, it's pretty much the standard for industrial machines.

@@GSBarlev I'm not an expert on the subject but it is my understanding that a lot of CAD calculations require a previous answer before being able to compute. Since you are waiting for something else to compute first, it has to wait for that thread to finish getting the data. Fusion 360 does use multiple cores, depending on the task. But a lot of tasks make the program freeze if it is too complex because one thread is doing all the work most of the time. Not sure how much more you can parallelize that kind of task. Blender works differently even if they might look similar. If they were to be able to rewrite the code in a way that the computations are more independent from each other then we might be able to see a big improvement on this. I think this would make it less efficient as far as CPU time but being that we have so many cores available usually, I would take the speed improvement over the efficiency.

the last single cores where 5 ghz. crossing that line to 6 ghz still isnt a thing. not without massive cooling.

Yep, the E cores are not very worthwhile. But since Intel is going all in, and AMD is going with different amounts of cache for some chiplets, The major OS makers are already hard at work making their schedulers work well with a heterogeneous core setup. This is why I feel it could be used in the other direction. A CPU with proper performance cores, and then 1 additional super performance core, where without care for efficiency, they do every trick in the book to maximize IPC and clock speed.

Some mobile SoCs already do this. They'll have, say, three "big" cores, and also one "prime" core. I'm not sure if they're actually different from the big cores in terms of microarchitecture, but are optimized and/or binned to run at higher clocks.

Some mobile SOCs will do a single extra high performance core with additional cache and clock speed, though no other fundamental differences compared to the other high performance cores. Those changes helped greatly, especially for web browsers where most scripting is still single threaded. that change allowed them to catch up to apple in the browser benchmarks such as Mozilla Kraken 1.1, Octane V2, etc. The mobile implementation has worked well, though I would like it to be taken further. For example, imagine taking a CPU like Ryzen 7 7800X, making the chiplet larger, and adding a 9th core that has a 4x more registers, go from 3 loads and 2 stores per cycle, to 6 loads and 4 stores. Double the pipeline width for the decode and Op-cache, and beef up the other aspects as well, sure it will make for a large increase in power consumption and some diminishing returns and basically all of the stuff that really harms efficiency on X86. For many years Apple did stuff like that with their smartphone SOCs since many apps, and especially web browsers benefited more from faster single threaded performance than multiple cores, thus you would see Apple and Qualcomm using the same ARM version, but apple would tweak it to improve single threaded performance where they would have 60-70% better performance but half the cores, thus while they would lose out on multithreaded tests, they would do significantly better on things like web browsers and web apps. Overall, with a move like that, efficiency would not be a goal, but it would be improved gaming performance above all else.

There are a few comments in another thread that cover why that wouldn't work and it comes down to physics. Smaller cores are more power efficient so you get more speed with less power but we're bumping up against the limits of silicon both in terms of size (any smaller and tunneling becomes a problem) and thermals (any more power and the chips will fry themselves). Bigger cores would hit the thermal limit faster and we can't just add more functions to the cores since the programs we're trying to speed up wouldn't be able to take advantage of it and it would heat up faster.

@@grn1 That is certainly a risk if trying to do something like make a single core that has the tflops of a quad core CPU. Though what I was focusing more on was something more along the lines of what Apple did with the Arm SOCs to improve IPC during the times when faster single threaded performance benefitted them a lot more than having more cores. They made changes that resulted in larger cores, such as a dual core that took as much die space as a quad core from Qualcomm. In the case of a desktop CPU, something similar could be done for one core, and that will drastically improve the performance of games that have a single thread bottleneck such as CS:GO, Microsoft flight simulator 2020, all current e-sports titles, and many others.

@@JEDI.ON.CREATINE1208 I have mad respect for you.

Malware with a Red Line stealer that runs hidden in the background

Yeah that was my thinking as well. I guess they were comparing multiple cores vs. running multiple threads on a single core. The video wasn't about only running 1 thread at a time. If we really only use 1 thread at a time then we run into the issue that we can no longer increase the frequency at which our CPU run. Or at least we can not increase it nearly as fast as we could by just adding more cores. It is a lot easier to build a CPU with 2 cores each at 4 GHz than 1 core at 8 GHz.

Yeah it seems weird to skip over the most obvious reason.

@@devluz @JacobPersico this is still kind of incorrect as core improvements are constantly made. A single core cpu today wouldnt stand up to a single core on any of todays cpus. Even by itself a single core on the most recent intel or amd chip would blow any single core from then out of the water. Its not that we can't make better single cores but that it is impractical to do so as multicore chips will always be faster than a single core chip ever will even if that single core is extremely powerful.

this is still kind of incorrect as core improvements are constantly made. A single core cpu today wouldnt stand up to a single core on any of todays cpus. Even by itself a single core on the most recent intel or amd chip would blow any single core from then out of the water. Its not that we can't make better single cores but that it is impractical to do so as multicore chips will always be faster than a single core chip ever will even if that single core is extremely powerful.

Yes, but they forgot to mention that context switching is the most inefficient process, having to flush the cache with every switch, hence why SMT/HT was introduced, though if the CPU is suffocating, it doesn't help much.

they just need to hack one computer that has acces to the rest of their network

yeah, and no messages in the live stream, and the deal about 2x cryptocurrency in 5 minutes sounding too good to be true.

No he dont care about ltt he just forgot. He hided all videos on other ltt channels

Tell me you're joking

Agreed.

Small thing, May I ask why you capitalized every word?

@@DeputyGamer it's a way how people type, don't worry abt it

How is it possible to hack two of his channels. RIP Linus Tech Tips and Techquicke.

i dont think dennis would be the kind of guy to run a redline stealer on accounts with 20m+ subscribers combined

I'm over to the other channels to, super-fun is okay for now.

Why would it be external? Why add another SOC that doesn't understand the architecture of the CPU in the socket? It makes more sense to build the scheduler onto the CPUs SOC, and that's exactly what they do. But at some point you need to prioritise scheduling at a thread/process level that the CPU can't understand. That's when it's handled by the OS, more specifically the kernel of the OS. It's handled in software so that it's flexible enough to meet the needs of the user. An external SOC wouldn't help with that either.

@Daniel Lupton if the cpu manufacturer is putting all resources into making a super fast core, that would put pressure on motherboard manufacturers to innovate on more advanced ways to organize the info. I don't know enough about, the software side of things, so I might be wrong. Also the motherboards would have to have specific cpu sockets for different architectures, that might sound tasking but it's just moving around a few pins each generation. Like a qr code

@@LeeVoolHM The motherboard doesn't organise anything. It just provides data lanes for the CPU to talk to the memory, GPU and I/O, and provides power to those components. The motherboard has no awareness of the data moving through it. I don't think you know enough about the subject to provide insight that the manufacturers are missing.

@Daniel Lupton I was suggesting that the task, of organizing data, would have to be managed by the motherboard. I'm not saying it does or has. I'm saying it would be needed for this hypothetical situation. Where the cpu has a 1 purpose of executing as fast as possible. then organization handled by the motherboard.

@@LeeVoolHM in what world would 2 chips talking to each other work faster than 1 chip that does both tasks on the same die? Not only would you have to deal with the latency of the communication bus, but you wouldn't be able to optimise anything at the silicon level. You should learn about cache misses and branch misses and you'll understand why the further data is from the CPU registers (L1, L2, L3 cache, memory, HDD, network, etc) each level can take 10-100x longer to retrieve and execute. Going from a 99% cache hit-rate to a 98% can half the speed of a processor. So having the data flow managed by an external chipset would ruin performance far more than any saving you get from splitting the task up. What I find fascinating is that you seem so insistent that this makes sense. There are so many reasons that it doesn't work, I don't even know where to begin. It's like the flat-earth theory. It's so wrong, it's actually hard to explain why without pretty much explaining all of science from scratch.

No, they didn't "virtualize half the hardware using the CPU". Some stuff moved into the chipset, some into the CPU and so on. It's not virtualized, you don't need virtualization to use the stuff. You're using incorrect terminology.

what are you even talking about XD. Nothing is virtualized.

I've contemplated building Ben Eater's 8 bit breadboard CPU, but I decided watching the video was enough for me. My wire routing is not at that level of awesomeness. It's the best series of videos on electrical and computer engineering I've ever watched, highly recommended.

@@danbance5799 oh, FPGA development is done with special coding languages known as hardware description languages. Examples are VHDL and SystemVerilog. You can just buy the physical hardware known as FPGA dev boards, then you can configure them to act as your own hardware designs that you implemented in the hardware description language you picked. I haven't actually wired very much myself yet, due to a lack of space and lack of garage.

That's precisely the point. CPU manufacturers could not deliver much higher clock speeds, so we got more cores instead and a whole bunch or complex parallelization problems.

@@NeovanGoth Higher clockspeeds like current Bulldozer-like situation with Raptor Lake and Zen 4 unlike the huge IPC of Apple M1 and M2 with a conservative 3.2GHz clock and 10 times less power at times.

​@@saricubra2867 It is not so easy to compare vastly different architectures(x86 to ARM).