Intel Says Chips To Become Slower But More Energy Efficient

wam7 · 8 Feb 2016 at 12:02

sam77 said:
I don't think suggesting an upgrade to a new cpu on a very old motherboard is wise.

Personally, I would much rather wait for shiny new Broadwell-e.

I don't spend money often, but when I do I make it count. Hence the whole 'people have too much money on these forums' theme. I was told to wait for Black Friday by a member of staff because the deals were just going to be insaaaaane. What we got instead were a couple percent off products that nobody even wanted. Then they still bragged to everyone about how much produce they shifted.

Profits, profits profits. Sales talk and uneducated consumers.

Lower end broadwell-e and pascal will not cost much more than haswell-e and maxwell. My 920 has lasted me until now, broadwell-e will last another 6 years and I will feel like a king knowing I have a product that will be able to handle anything thrown at it. Games will not advance so far that I am going to feel bottleknecked. That is not true if you buy current gen. So it would just be a waste of money. That is all there is to it.

1. I have shown you to be 'economical with the truth'. Which might give you cause not to reply but anonymity behind a keyboard gives people that strange hubris.

2. You state "I don't think suggesting an upgrade to a new cpu on a very old motherboard is wise". :confused:

Did you not read the thread? It's a ~£60 purchase compared to a ~£500 plus for a new system. I posted my scores compared to Skylake and a guy replied saying it was even more than his stock 5820k. For ~£60! Did you even know the history and what a Xeon 5650/70 is?

3. I'll repeat what I said in that post, games are only going to become more multi-threaded not less. It sounds like you need to do some reading as you're the only person I've seen arguing against going from quad-core to hex-core (and higher clock speeds) for £60!

4. On one hand you're complaining about profits and bad advice to spend by consumers and then on the other hand ****ging off one of the biggest money saving and cost effective upgrades if you already have X58. :confused:

5. You seem to talking for talking sake (like I did when I was 16) so if I don't reply to you again it is not an admission of your rightness but I'm just not wanting to pursue an object in futility in trying to correct your inane comprehension and reasoning.

sam77 · 8 Feb 2016 at 13:50

Games can't even utilize 4 cores properly yet. Newer architecture and higher clocks > budget build. My motherboard for my 920 is as budget as it gets. It's time for a new one.

As with everything, opinions depend on circumstance. I want something totally new but I'm sure there are others who would choose a £60 cpu over a completely new computer. I'll drop a couple hundred and get something that will make me feel warm, fuzzy and last longer.

Your reading comprehension seems to have failed. I am arguing FOR buying hex-core. I am saying people should just WAIT for the BEST hex core since nothing worth playing will be coming out that can utilize the extra cores until broadwell-e anyway.

jigger · 8 Feb 2016 at 14:28

How much slower will Intel chips be than todays...

Telecaster · 8 Feb 2016 at 18:27

Let;s be honest, do games even use anywhere near the full potential of even a non K mid range i5? let alone the i7K that loads of people stump up for....

We'd all get by perfectly well if they stayed at Skylake performance but just developed the energy saving side of things, and we know it, the only folks upset are those that MUST overclock and have 4.7+ghz on every chip they own for no reason what-so-ever other than it sounds good on forums.

As long as it does what it's supposed to I couldn't care less how it does it.

jigger · 8 Feb 2016 at 19:28

Maybe for gaming I suppose that could be the case. It's questionable why anyone will ever upgrade again though. Bar a catastrophic failure I can't see any reason. Regardless of how efficient a chip Intel make performance will always come ahead of efficiency.

If Intel chips are to get slower and less overclockable with every generation we will get to a point that the older desktop chips will command a higher price than the new.

Intel are just doing wrong as far as I can see.

P.B · 8 Feb 2016 at 19:41

Step backward is still a step backwards.

theMilitant · 8 Feb 2016 at 21:16

Not nice news on the face of it. We've been GPU bound from a gaming perspective for a long time now though so at least this shouldn't slow down advances in gaming technology for a while...

jigger · 8 Feb 2016 at 21:38

Well we've been CPU mostly, but for gaming the new API's should help.

Cyanide · 8 Feb 2016 at 22:10

4790k is looking like a good buy for me now then, could well be Intels fastest ever processor

hedgey · 10 Feb 2016 at 18:15

Intel don't innovate anymore. Market is shrinking.

Randomface74 · 10 Feb 2016 at 18:17

920 for life then

Nasher · 11 Feb 2016 at 10:01

TBH I don't think we are going to see much improvement now until they switch away from silicone and start using something like Graphene. Which will come...eventually.

~>Dg<~ · 11 Feb 2016 at 10:53

yes we reaching a wall now and most people dont need more than 4 cores to surf facebook and use twitter.

thats why mobile computing is the future and desktops just decline year after year.

last year 25 percent down on pc components.

did say few years ago when the new consoles launch it will be a tough time for pc sales.

add to that lack lustre improvements gotta be some hard sells coming and only get tighter margin wise.

james.miller · 11 Feb 2016 at 10:59

Don't know why its suggested we've hit a wall in processing power when intel can produces the likes of the 22core/44thread xeon broadwell-ep monster. All that power must be transferable to a quad/hex/octa core somehow.

Ayahuasca · 11 Feb 2016 at 12:52

Just need a new api (dx12 hopefully) and engines to start being able to use 6+ cores properly. We've hit a wall with gaming because we're stuck on DX11 and engines that can't, don't or need to use more than a few cores, with people using higher resolutions now the GPU is doing a lot of the work.

jigger · 11 Feb 2016 at 17:42

Ayahuasca said:
Just need a new api (dx12 hopefully) and engines to start being able to use 6+ cores properly. We've hit a wall with gaming because we're stuck on DX11 and engines that can't, don't or need to use more than a few cores, with people using higher resolutions now the GPU is doing a lot of the work.

We already have those chips now, so for gaming we need API's that uses more than 8 cores or we need faster cores.

Ayahuasca · 11 Feb 2016 at 17:50

Yeah we have 6 cores now but not many titles utilise them properly is what I'm saying.

Dave2150 · 11 Feb 2016 at 18:18

Cyanide said:
4790k is looking like a good buy for me now then, could well be Intels fastest ever processor

6700k is faster than the 4790k, and has much more PCI-E lanes on it's chipset.

Also runs much cooler, and generally overclocks better.

Dave2150 · 11 Feb 2016 at 18:20

billysielu said:
920 for life then

I had my I7 920 C0 stepping for 7.5 years. Noticed a huge jump in performance when I upgraded to a 6700K. Wish I'd done it sooner tbh. Minimum fps's were much higher also, which is very important gaming wise.

setter · 11 Feb 2016 at 18:27

Dave2150 said:
I had my I7 920 C0 stepping for 7.5 years. Noticed a huge jump in performance when I upgraded to a 6700K. Wish I'd done it sooner tbh. Minimum fps's were much higher also, which is very important gaming wise.

In your case yes, the switch from a 920 to the 6700k will have been a massive jump. But for someone on anything from sandybridge onwards it isnt as big a difference. Ive owned the following in the last few years.

i7 920
i5 3570k
i7 3770k
i7 4770k
i7 4790k
i7 5820k

The performance difference from one chip to the next has been pretty small. None so far with the 4790k - 5820k as that is pretty much a side grade. Only bought it on a whim as the board, cpu, ram and a pcie ssd were going cheap at £400.00 from a friend. Also hoping that DX12 will help in the future for gaming.