Indeed, my point was not all chips do well with Desktop application loads.

People were bad at handling parallelism with ia64, and still have problems today on better amd platforms with less janky compilers.

The fact an $800 chip still can beat a $14000 chip at some tasks probably should tell people something about concurrency scaling overhead. =3

▲

qubex 20 hours ago | parent [-]

EPIC was Explicit Parallel Instruction Computing, the underlying engineering architecture of AI-64. Epyc is an AMD brand name.

And pivoting to concurrency on a rescheduler-intensive core as opposed to concurrency on a scheduler-based core isn’t very pertinent, particularly since we have 25 years of Moore’s Law between then and now.

	▲	Joel_Mckay 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"AI" responses are silly, and optimal 24 core count efficiency premise in Desktop applications offer diminishing returns on a highly concurrent 32/64/192 core Epyc line of OoO chips... How many strings does a Bass play with in water? =3