The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Every modern cpu works in a range of frequencies, from idle to boost (which is a frequency that the processor will keep for a brief amount of time)
Most Intel CPUs are sold either as "locked" or "unlocked", just the unlocked ones can be used for overclocking because they allow changing the configuration of voltages and frequencies.
If I remember correctly, AMD ones (or at least Ryzens) are all sold unlocked.
Overclocking is very much still alive, it's just the process of changing a setting from an app or the bios over the limit set by the manufacturer
This said, all the newer ones run at a much lower base frequency. Does this means the everyday tasks on programs prepared to run only on one core will run slower?
The base clock (frequency) is the frequency used when the cpu is idle, it has no impact on performance AFAIK, especially considering that during normal use, the cpu sits idle about 90% of the time, It surely matters a lot less than the max sustained clock or boost (instantaneous) clock speeds.
In case we would have 3 single core designed programs running at the same time... Would windows set them to use a different core each?
No, Windows' scheduler handles everything, single thread apps can and often will be moved around, for... reasons :shrug:
If the processes don't use 100% of the core, they might even run on the same one, if the almighty scheduler says so
If I would have 3 vmware virtual machines running at once... having more cores would be better (would each core be dedicated to one virtual machine)?
I don't know what exactly happens but I see 2 scenarios:
1. yes, the cores are dedicated to the vm instance and that's it, having more cores would mean that you can allocate more of them to the VMs (the usefulness of this may vary a lot, depending on your workload)
2. no, the scheduler handles the vm jobs exactly as it would with a normal host os process and the scheduler inside the guest os doesn't know that it's not running on an actual cpu but a virtual one*
Having more physical cores, might improve performance in this case too, **depending on the workload**
* it might and that could trigger some kind of optimization but... I have no idea, it probably depends on the combination of guest OS, host OS and virtualization app you're using (I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable than me)
The frequency was an indicator of performance in the 90s. In the meantime, architectural details are way more important. IPC times frequency is a better metric, but even that's far from the whole picture. The way the cores & cache are organized can have a serious impact on performance as can the memory controller (not so long ago, AMD CPUs ran crappy with slow RAM, AFAIK AMD removed the heavy RAM dependency in their newer products).
If you want to know how well a given CPU will fare in your workloads (Cinebench is different from gaming is different from video editing), you have to benchmark yourself or read benchmarks. userbenchmark.com is a good place to start. I personally recommend Linus Tech Tips on YouTube. They cover CPUs (and hardware in general) in quite the detail, thoroughly refraining from simple answers such as "it's good" or "it sucks" because different workloads are indeed a thing.
Dedicating cores to VMs isn't a bad idea, and that Linus dude got a couple videos on that as well (i.e. "One CPU 6 video editors").
Mostly I'm thinking on a Thinkpad T14s (pure ultrabook that can be maxed to 32GB RAM and configured with Intel or AMD processors), but I've also thought to get the Thinkpad P1 Gen 3[^] which is the one that has that processor, a Quadro graphics card and that can be upgraded to 64GB of RAM too.
I guess I'll end with the T14s, but I looked at the P1 because it is light enough, very powerful and has a 15" display which would make reading texts easier... getting old... ^^¡
In my case the P1 has only some sense when I have to import 3D designs into robot programming softwares, and when, from time to time (2 or 3 times per year) I need to open up to 3 virtual machines at once...
I will get a new laptop soon, warranty of mine is about to expire and I can't afford being at who knows which customer company, get it broken and must wait 1 week to get a new one, therefore, I will get another one with a full 5 years warranty that covers even accidental damage 100% during all that time.
Then, as I'm buying a computer for the next 4 to 5 years, I'm trying to get the best that suits my needs.
Currently I've got several times my Thinkpad T460s lagging due to 100% processor work loads.
Outlook 365 is always open, multiple office documents are open too, the software I'm using to program (which sometimes it includes a 3D representation of a machine loaded into memory), sometimes I need multiple instances of Visual Studio running at once as the PLC/CNC programming software I use is integrated into VS...
Clearly whatever I'll buy will be better than what I have now (2 cores only) but it made me think when I saw my current CPU has a higher base frequency than what I will get next... And then, the turbo frequency is not sustained as the thermals will make it step down...
The worse cases are when I must start a full virtual Linux server, and 2 computers more to launch an old software that (thanks God I must not do usually) I need to perform some specific works.
And sometimes (not often either) I need to check 3D designs customers send me and then my laptop suffers...
Then, I can get any of those options in the original post... I think I will get a T14s (which is the natural replacement for my current computer). Now Lenovo offer Intel and AMD in some professional laptop series... and this is making it more difficult to choose...
Thunderbolt or not?
Less cores and higher base frequency or more cores and lower base frequency?
In Spain, as far as I know, there is not a physical shop where I can see them working and test them so I must get the computer by Internet, hence all those questions.
I've noticed for a week or more that some titles on BBC News site use a different font. Compare this with that. One uses a serif font while the other one uses a sans serif font.
Being a Saturday without much to do, I investigated a bit and found out that the serif font is a specially designed font (Reith font) that supposedly will make BBC site to stand out more and, among other things will "significantly reduce annual spend on licensing third-party owned fonts".
I'm not an expert but I'm wondering if forcing all browsers to download a font, isn't incurring additional bandwidth costs? In general is it advisable to design a site with a specific (and rare) font or use one of the many fonts already cached by browsers?
Also, years ago when I was learning the basics of font usage, I remember the advice to use serif fonts for the body of text (serifs guide the eye and make it easier to follow long paragraphs) and leave sans serif for headlines that stand out better. Is this still considered sound advice?
Add to these questions the visual inconsistency from one article to the next and I ask: why would BBC do that?
The bigger bolder font is to contend with the continuously shortened attention spans required of each succeeding generation.
I have it, from very high sources, that this is merely an intermediate step and your worry about download fonts and bandwidth increases will only be short-term. The final plan is to switch to Comic Sans* so that the new and younger audience members will not be quite so intimidated by all of those letters and words.
Hopefully, this alleviates your concerns.
* This also goes along with the quality of news the BBC now presents - "all the news that fit's their agenda" (or can be so contorted).
They loook like completely different pages to me.
The cookie banner is at the top for one and on the bottom for the other, they're different banners too (I just opened it again and suddenly the banners are both at the bottom still different though).
The margin on the edges is different, the overall page layout is different, the menu is slightly different...
I'm not sure what "av" in the URL means, but maybe they're testing a new design?
I also notice that your 'this' link has '/av/' between 'news/' and 'science-environment' in the URL. It seems it's for audio-visual stuff, and comes with a back button which just refreshes the page and restarts the video, rather than going back to codeproject. If you do nothing after the video ends, it automatically goes on to another video.
Apparently this answer seems to be the only example on planet earth that demonstrates how to use the IGroupPolicyObject interface to programmatically set the removable drive policy using C++ on the Windows operating system. Which means it's a valid three-term Googlewhack but for multiple search engines.
This allows me to test the SEO related to those search terms and codeproject.com: