NSA force CPU makers to limit CPU'S?

It just seems to me that multi-core processors are a waste, when that space could be better used by a single bigger processor core.

Anyone that's ever designed a circuit realizes that redundancy is redundant.  4 processors !/= 4x the power.  Fractional improvements are fractional of what normal should be.

>>48
>>49
First off, I like how you always make two posts in rapid succession in an attempt to make it look like you're two people. You actually had me going for a minute there. Anyways, your entire understanding of CPU architecture is apparently based on commercials for the Nintendo 64. I can't come up with any other reason for how you could possibly be this stupid. Further, try reading my fucking post; I specifically said a 2 bit processor would NOT be sufficient due to the obvious lack of precision. 32 bit and 64 bit processors do not suffer from a lack of precision in virtually any non-scientific applications. 128+ bit processors bring virtually nothing to the table except the possibility of use as vector processors, which tends to be usable only in niche applications, unlike other improvements (more cores). Indeed, most of the driving cause behind the movement to 64 bit was memory addressing, not precision of floating point numbers.