As far back as 2011, I was reading articles from this blog: <a href="https://www.1024cores.net/" rel="nofollow">https://www.1024cores.net/</a><p>I remember thinking: "That's crazy! One kilo-cores! They're processors, not memory!"<p>Then, almost immediately, it started sinking in that <i>this</i> is what Moore's law means. That yes, sooner or later, I'll be working on a single system with more than a thousand cores (or hardware threads) in it.<p>This behemoth of a server probably has 8 sockets and I'm guessing it is the size of half a rack or thereabouts.<p>An upcoming AMD EPYC processor is rumored to have 256 cores (512 threads), which means that a "normal sized" server will have 512c/1024t soon at a more reasonable cost: <a href="https://www.extremetech.com/computing/328692-future-256-core-amd-epyc-cpu-might-sport-remarkably-low-600w-tdp" rel="nofollow">https://www.extremetech.com/computing/328692-future-256-core...</a><p>Similarly, Intel is planning a processor with 288 cores within a year, although it may or may not have hyper-threading: <a href="https://www.anandtech.com/show/21276/intel-previews-sierra-forest-with-288-e-cores-announces-granite-rapids-d-for-2025-launch-at-mwc-2024" rel="nofollow">https://www.anandtech.com/show/21276/intel-previews-sierra-f...</a><p>A challenge I like to pose to software developers is this: If you were given one of these servers, and you could install your software on it, would it get 100x faster for <i>one</i> user than a server with just 10 vCPUs?