> Why do microprocessors not strive for simplicity, implement only a handful of instructions in an optimized way, with a very small chip footprint, to be followed by proliferation of cores (think 256-core, 512-core, 1024-core).
Modern CPU designers have such a larger transistor budget than they need to get creative to make use of all of it, so specialized instructions are pretty much free.
And no, you can't just stuff 1024 cores in a processor; apart from the fact that most software wouldn't know what to make of it, such a monster might end up bottlenecked by intercommunication or memory bandwidth.
Also simple CPUs are just slow; you need a lot of machinery to perform well at high frequency/high memory latency.
Modern CPU designers have such a larger transistor budget than they need to get creative to make use of all of it, so specialized instructions are pretty much free.
And no, you can't just stuff 1024 cores in a processor; apart from the fact that most software wouldn't know what to make of it, such a monster might end up bottlenecked by intercommunication or memory bandwidth.
Also simple CPUs are just slow; you need a lot of machinery to perform well at high frequency/high memory latency.