Hardware survey - CPU Cores over time

[David (PassMark)]

We went data mining on our 2 million benchmark results from over the last 10 years and came up with the cool looking graph below showing the number of cores in CPUs over time.

Note: This is physical cores and ignores hyper-threading / virtual cores.




We'll be updating the this graph each month.

For the latest CPU Cores graph see this hardware survey page.

[GawgA]

Thanks, interesting graph. I guess that is Intel and AMD combined? (Sorry if mentioned and I missed it.)
As we all know AMD have been the ones to push more cores. Good for them. I have an OCed (Silicon lottery delid) i7 8086 (6 real cores), and of course the i9 moves that up to 8 (I'm ignoring HT).

My comment is that if it were not for AMD giving Intel a much need kick up the somewhere I think that consumer CPUs (i7 line and i5 mainly) by Intel would Still be 4 real cores. Not sure really, but I think it's likely.

Ironically if anyone is happy with their Coffee lakes, we may have AMD to thank for that. My 6 core binned and delided 8086 is a great chip. Runs at 5.3GHz with sensible temps and voltage. But I usually stick to my very cool running 5.1GHz. For most things 5.1GHz feels the same as 5.3GHz. Benches, and just one of my many games (Wolf 2 Colussus) does run a bit better at 5.3GHz, but for the most games, apps etc No real world difference. (Benchmarks are an exception of course - as one would expect.)

Anyone agree, or disagree about AMD prodding Intel to go over 4 cores for the popular i7 and now i9 CPUs?

[David (PassMark)]

Yes, this is combined Intel and AMD CPUs.

More cores isn't always a good thing. I would prefer 4 fast cores than 16 slow cores.

[GawgA]

Thanks David. I agree about 4 fast cores vs 16 slow ones. Particularly with normal PC use and gaming. I guess some apps (video, media editing etc.) benefit from multiple cores? But in my case that's irrelevant.
Cheers.