That begs a question why something so important as CPU development has been left to a private company? Wouldn't be better to nationalise Intel and make sure it develops CPU that can serve the people and help advance the society? Corporate interests are not always good for the humanity and I think it is time for a state to step in. Intel has been having free reign for too long.
Your post reads like trolling, but if you're actually interested in the real history of this, semiconductor manufacturing has been a joint industry/govt. thing for almost its entire lifetime. As one starting point, read about SEMATECH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH
DARPA has long played a huge role in furthering US semiconductor capabilities.
Look, we have state police, army and then see how disastrous private healthcare turned out to be.
Maybe DARPA should step up their game then, as instead of nationalising the Intel they could nationalise their IP and work on affordable and _fast_ CPU for the people as Intel fails to deliver.
We are yet to see a private company landing human on the moon. Imagine what CPU we could have today if state really took over.
I'm not trying to argue with you, because you still sound like you're trolling. I'm providing some information about this topic for others so they have a better grounding for reasoning about the issue. Semiconductors are one of the most interesting grounds for discussing the role of private industry and the state in advancing the state of the art in technology. See, for example:
If we had a single organization developing our national CPU manufacturing process, it would likely have been staffed much like Intel, since Intel is the big gorilla and the people best able to climb the organizational ladder ended up there. Thus, I think it would be more accurate to say that this is an example of why you DON'T have a single, national organization do something as important as this.
I am taking your comment as a concise way to imply significant inefficiency and poor efficacy at NASA. If I am misreading, please let me know.
Such polar implications about the efficacy of private vs. government (whether in R&D or other domains) represent reality poorly, and in fact your example contradicts itself with the enormous amounts of beneficial R&D NACA and NASA did and which industry built upon. This doesn't excuse the extremely wasteful behavior of NASA (e.g., SLS); only to say that you can't paint it all with the same brush of "wasteful, inefficient, government".
It is necessary to have capable people acting with good judgment to do "good and effective" work. Neither government nor industry have a monopoly on people of mediocre effectiveness or judgment. It is true that the government doesn't have market pressure to call it on the carpet for wastefulness. But that's the same attribute that enables it to undertake moonshots or do hard, expensive R&D that benefits society as a whole.
That's fair. I don't mean to imply that the public sector can't do anything well - just look at the Canadian health care system vs the US one - hardly perfect, but substantially better on the whole. However, the public sector often has less pressure to do things efficiently, or they have additional requirements, like we see with NASA splitting contracts up among various states for political reasons.
I don't think semiconductors would be better handled by the public sector - even if one could somehow get political support for that, which seems very unlikely in the US.
>>just look at the Canadian health care system vs the US one - hardly perfect, but substantially better on the whole.
The thing is, you say "on the whole" but I am sure you mean one or two parameters. I am not from US and I abhore the monstrosity that is the US healthcare system, but no one here can deny that US does have the absolute best healthcare in the world - as long as you can afford it. No wonder people from all over the world come over to US for difficult operations, because they usually get access to the best techniques, best doctors and best equipment. The only issue with all of this is that it costs a tonne of money and it's ruining the American society.
I don't think it's difficult to see that other sectors are the same - there are things that NASA excels at, and there are things which almost any space-oriented startup can do better. But it always depends on what sort of thing is a priority for you.
> I don't think semiconductors would be better handled by the public sector - even if one could somehow get political support for that, which seems very unlikely in the US.
Again, take a look at the SEMATECH example discussed above. I understand it to be considered a successful undertaking on the whole. For a present-day example along similar lines, see DARPA's Electronics Resurgence Initiative ("ERI").
I can't wait for the Skylake-X refresh. I use my computer for real-time audio and although the processing scales to multiple cores the "real-timeness" is limited by the speed of the single-core. Sadly AMD still is nowhere near Intel in this regard. I was hoping 2990WX could be an upgrade to 1800X, but sadly it won't be as the single core can also be limited by not having access to local memory. It is Intel this year.
Are you saying that when you start a game, you are closing all the programs you have opened and disable all the services/background processes?
If a game uses 6 cores, you can have 2 more for your office, browser and god knows what else running without slowing you down.
Just because the program is running doesn't mean it's using any appreciable amount of CPU. Most applications spend their time waiting for IO, and when you're not interacting with them, there isn't any.
Sure, but are you checking that every single application you have opened does "nothing" before you start a game? The point is to not being worried about such things.
Background services (Discord, etc) use a negligible amount of processor power. It should be like sub-5% on a modern processor, with the processor clocked down to its lowest frequency. With the processor at turbo, you should be pulling 1-3% easily, even actively using multiple tasks.
These days even Chrome is very aggressive about throttling background tabs, much to the consternation of some webdevs here.
So much this, to say "you only need x cores because the software can only use x cores" is a little shortsighted, because there's always stuff happening in the background.
