On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:19:42 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I didn't count em but, Do we really need that many CPUs?
Now I don't feel too bad about buying *one* Lonely AMD!

-

When my last computer exploded (supply pole outside the building was
struck by lightning), it was a "rush job". There were three or four
general AMD classifications/iterations supported by the BIOS, within
which, perhaps 20 to 50 processors might be subclassified within each
type-classification

I bought two, amid many, one of which wasn't a sound choice and was
indicative better to replace, upon a more replete, conclusively
studied manner from an aftermarket dealer in used CPUs located in
South Korea.

If fleas infest used CPUs in Ebay's habitat, then Korea is a further
degree of pricing microorganisms.

Core counts do actually help, I find. And not necessarily eight,
twelve or sixteen;- Even in instances and applications where six can
justify advantage over four cores. And where AMD is presently
positioning six-core Ryzens, the price-point average is near to parity
with a prior-generation sockets at respective core counts.

There's a land mine type that was deployed in the
Serbian/Bosnia-Herzegovina war that's designed not to explode upwards,
but first to propel itself upwards before deploying unidirectionally.
I think that's what AMD engineering meant when exceeding four cores
for their early "flagship series", its first and better instances
among the above pre-Ryzen/AM4 iterations.

In fact, six minimally if not eight liberally -by some- is the new
norm to cores.