It has 6 physical cores (12 virtual) which I think is enough for almost all workloads. No complaints.
They've now been superseded by the i9-9700k and i9-9900k which each have 8 physical cores and are slightly faster per single threads.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
Software is nowhere near making use of all those threads under most circumstances IMO.
Cue all the people saying how they couldn't live without their 32 threads...
I can live without 24 threads, but I love not having my computer become unusable because I'm encoding video or doing some other CPU-heavy task. having more than 4 threads has opened a whole new world of thinking of how to parallelize common tasks - not ever having to wait for your computer feels like a super-power. Paradoxically, this has freed me up to use an ARM chromebook for day-to-day usage - when I need firepower, I remote into the TR workstation (smartplug + boot on power BIOS + dynamic DNS)
I'll never stop feeling a little exhilaration from typing "make -j 22"
I ended up installing ESXi on the machine, and passing through my video card, usb and nvme to the windows vm. It works great. I then use the spare compute for running vSphere
Why would you expect anything different when JS _does_ run in a single thread? We'll have to wait for WebAssembly to have anything like real multithreading, with good-enough performance, on the Web.
No reason for site A rendering to block site B; no reason for either to block the main UI. No reason for an issue tracker to take 10 seconds to achieve interactivity on LAN (heck, I'd consider 0.5 seconds slow).
Still, javascript issues tend to cause too many hangups of other parts (browser UI or other websites). We are in the awkward position where OS threads are considered too heavyweight to use an entire thread for each tab, but browsers haven't implemented a more lightweight alternative either. So things just share threads when they really shouldn't.
Specifically an Erlang/Elixir-ish actor async implementation