A while back I did a whirlwind tour trying out different parallel looping abstractions in different languages, comparing their performance and ease of use. Rust+Rayon was one of the best. Simple code, fast runtime: https://jackmott.github.io/programming/2016/08/30/think-befo...
As you already hinted at in your article, the choice of MSVC++ as the "best" Windows C++ compiler is highly debatable. GCC, Clang and ICC will all generate significantly faster binaries for your code examples and, in the case of ICC, automatically parallelize the loop and take advantage of any SIMD instructions (up to AVX-512) available on your hardware. It doesn't always get everything right, but for simple cases it's usually very close to optimal in my experience, and vastly superior to MSVC++.
The first phrase is objectionable, the Pentium D was a (pretty badly implemented) reaction to AMD's announcement that they were going to bring their workstation and server dual-cores to the desktop. And while Intel technically did manage to take the crown the D was a pretty bad dual-core compared to the A64X2.
Er… what? You're the one who objected on editorial grounds that a digression into the more interesting facets of the issue would detail from the core of the article. I'm providing an easy fix of not raising the issue by not putting in objectionable details in the first place, that has nothing to do with "brand loyalty/antipathy".
It might be slightly good to at least mention that AMD and Intel both worked on this at about the same time.
I may make this edit next time I push an update for something else.
I welcome pedantic critiques because, well..I too am pedantic.
Alternatively, remove that mention and just note that over the last 10 years pretty much all computers have become multi-core, even expanding to multi-core phones?
