Do you think your i5/i7 has any sense of how underutilised it is?

  • 1
    With the amount of migrations I run, no 😉
  • 1
    When looking at the CPU usage during the use of some software I don't even wonder why progressbars or the term "wait/waiting for the computer to finish the task" still exists. 12cores with 4ghz at my hands! Why does something even need time for anything? Use the whole fucking power! Simultaneous! Parallel!

    I know that most of all hardware and software was build on industry standards that are evolving slower that the rate of possible computer power... But... But please! I see future times were we will have quantum computing at home - and compilers will still take enough time so I can go out and take a break.
  • 3
    Sometimes doing 3D renders for 24 Hours straight so I think it's happy when I code and it isnt maxed out :P
  • 1
    @Atlas I see where you're going, but the problem is a lot of stuff is not really good to parallelize and on most non performace relevant stuff programmers don't even care to implement it for parallel execution...
  • 0
    @quine welcome to devRant

    go create an avatar for your self
  • 1
    @qbasic16 First: Wrong. And the right term is "concurrent". Its more difficult to program, but if done right, it can be faster. Our whole world is concurrent.
    Second: YES! Most just wont give a fuck. And this is bad, because our CPUs have more than one cores for over 14 years now.
  • 0
    @vortexman100 What exactly do you mean with wrong? 😉
  • 1
    @qbasic16 "A lot of stuff is not really good to parrelilize [...]" Most stuff can be made with a concurrent design. Of course there are some who cant, but for most there is a way. I recommend Rob Pikes talk about concurrency vs parrellelism.
  • 1
    @vortexman100 Ok, yeah that's totally true. I should probably have used a more specific quantifier.
Add Comment