But a counter argument is that those people aren't the market for a 64-core desktop.

Intel graciously allowed the USB consortium to use Thunderbolt 3 tech for USB 4. There will be some minor differences, but this differentiator in Intel favor should fade over time.

Here's is briefly explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0W7fHJMnyg

Never underestimate non tech savy customers.

If they can buy a notebook with processors or 16 processors they will be second one because bigger numbers means better.

At least in the consumer market in the UK this is exactly what AMD is viewed as by non-techs.

If you go to an average big box store and look for laptops AMD based systems can start as little as £250 where as you can't get a mobile i3 based system anywhere close.

When these pathetic CPUs are teamed with slow disks and a pile of bloatware it makes them seem cheap and awful.

The biasing isn't just non-techs. I've hand built every PC I've ever owned for over 20 years now, in addition to building many for family and friends, and I still have to do a bit of mental gymnastics to get over my biases for certain manufacturers. When someone like Intel has consistently delivered better performing parts for as long as they have, when AMD throws up a better part it almost feels like its a trick. Hell even now on the consumer desktop parts it looks like Intel is still edging out the newest AMD offerings on single-threaded performance. Just not at a good price. People, even smart informed people, still try to avoid decisions when it seems easy to do so. Reaching for an Intel processor has meant getting the faster part for so long that its muscle memory for people. That's going to take a while to undo.

> As far as I understand it, AMD doesn't natively support thunderbolt and that's an emerging standard that people really like.

Most of the AsRock x570 motherboards support thunderbolt currently afaik

> As far as I understand it, AMD doesn't natively support thunderbolt and that's an emerging standard that people really like.

Thunderbolt has been an "emerging standard that people really like" for almost a decade, with virtually no installed base outside select Apple products.

I don't know about others but my lightmapper will certainly benefit :-P. Perhaps compilation times, for some stuff.

Compilation of C++ code is one workload. Just make sure you also have a lot of RAM!

Chrome, Google web properties, gmail javascript, dev perk. What kind of system do you think a developer making this

>first photo is a 2000x1489px PNG (4.5MB) and it is scaled to just 451x335px.

had on his desk?

“640k should be enough for anyone”?

Run Slack of course.

Uses right now are fairly limited. However advancing technology has a tendency to open up new possibilities unthinkable before

I don’t think even enthusiasts can fully engage a 64 core device with any meaningful uses that a 32 core wouldn’t suffice.

This is a server chip that excels at virtualization.

If you do data science/ML with CPU computed models (basically everything except deep networks), you get a ~2x speedup when doing e.g n-fold cross validation (n >= 64), or hyperparameter optimisation via grid search.

The question is, what workloads do people have that they'll run often enough and/or profitably enough to warrant those 64 CPUs sitting around idle when they're not using them.

This is the advantage of a cloud host. Sure you pay a premium, but you're paying not to pay for it when you're not using it (and networking and power and updates and security etc.).

(Disclaimer: I work on Google Cloud)

I can answer this! So my work computers are 28, 32, and 96 physical cores each. And honestly, none of those are enough. I'd ideally have a very high clock speed 128 core desktop with a 1,000-10,000 compute cluster available with 10 gb/s internet speeds.

Now back to your question on why these are needed, parallelized simulations. I do computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for designing, fixing, troubleshooting, and optimizing processes and products. They solve large systems of equations that need many cores for meshing and solving and then we need high CPU/GPU core counts just to handle and process the data. In my case at least, the average industrial/manufacturing piece of equipment needs about 1000 cores to recreate as a digital twin due to the amount of multiphysics, complicated geometry, etc.

Run dozens of parallel vms for Selenium tests. Honestly, I could utilize anything the industry could offer as long as the price would be affordable.

Aside from that let me just remind that pretty much everyone in here is an edge case user. We're not the norm so my guess is that your question should be addressed to the general public. In that context I doubt anyone would need such processing power. It's no surprise that Apple is investing heavily in the iPad Pro product line. Most users could be fine with just a tablet.

Raytracing.