4 years on, do we have any major upgrades from i5-2500k?

[silversurfer]

Almost 10 years ago now they mentioned 32 core cpu would be released :/

If your CPU has only a single core, it's officially a dinosaur. In
fact, quad-core computing is now commonplace; you can even get laptop
computers with four cores today. But we're really just at the
beginning of the core wars: Leadership in the CPU market will soon be
decided by who has the most cores, not who has the fastest clock
speed.

What is it? With the gigahertz race largely abandoned, both AMD and
Intel are trying to pack more cores onto a die in order to continue to
improve processing power and aid with multitasking operations.
Miniaturizing chips further will be key to fitting these cores and
other components into a limited space. Intel will roll out
32-nanometer processors (down from today's 45nm chips) in 2009.

When is it coming? Intel has been very good about sticking to its road
map. A six-core CPU based on the Itanium design should be out
imminently, when Intel then shifts focus to a brand-new architecture
called Nehalem, to be marketed as Core i7. Core i7 will feature up to
eight cores, with eight-core systems available in 2009 or 2010. (And
an eight-core AMD project called Montreal is reportedly on tap for
2009.)

After that, the timeline gets fuzzy. Intel reportedly canceled a
32-core project called Keifer, slated for 2010, possibly because of
its complexity (the company won't confirm this, though). That many
cores requires a new way of dealing with memory; apparently you can't
have 32 brains pulling out of one central pool of RAM. But we still
expect cores to proliferate when the kinks are ironed out: 16 cores by
2011 or 2012 is plausible (when transistors are predicted to drop
again in size to 22nm), with 32 cores by 2013 or 2014 easily within
reach. Intel says "hundreds" of cores may come even farther down the
line

 

[spoffle]

My original post that you quoted and replied to:



Your reply to my post:



It's clear that I was commenting on the hardware implications of games ported from the new consoles to PC.

What 'doesn't really work how I'm suggesting'? Regardless of how the game is ported, my post was clearly arguing that porting games from the new consoles to the PC would have hardware implications, such as the 8 core support/utilization.

It would appear that you don't understand what your typing from one minute to the next.

Yes, "as more and more are ported". My point was that they aren't ported, so it isn't going to work in the way you're suggesting. So there are no implications of games being ported from the new consoles to PCs.

What is actually happening is the hardware configuration is changing how developers develop games in general, though more realistically it'll be game engines. This isn't happening BECAUSE of X86, or because 8 CPU cores with 8GB of RAM, it's happening because the lowest common denominator of hardware is a lot higher than it was with the previous consoles. X86 helps, as does 8 CPU cores and the RAM, but we're seeing what we've seen every time a new range of consoles come out. More visually complex games coming out.


The reason I responded with what I did is that it's clear that you are under the impression that a game is made for a console, and once it's complete it gets "ported" as the complete console version to the PC, as you keep saying "ported from" hence my replies.

This is how most lay people think it works, which is why we see so many people foaming at the mouth about "CONSOLE PORTS". This is definitely not how it works.

The fact that you're not well versed on this subject has meant you're not really getting what I'm saying, but it's a lot more complex than hardware that appears to be similar on X86.

 

[Dave2150]

Yes, "as more and more are ported". My point was that they aren't ported, so it isn't going to work in the way you're suggesting. So there are no implications of games being ported from the new consoles to PCs.

What is actually happening is the hardware configuration is changing how developers develop games in general, though more realistically it'll be game engines. This isn't happening BECAUSE of X86, or because 8 CPU cores with 8GB of RAM, it's happening because the lowest common denominator of hardware is a lot higher than it was with the previous consoles. X86 helps, as does 8 CPU cores and the RAM, but we're seeing what we've seen every time a new range of consoles come out. More visually complex games coming out.


The reason I responded with what I did is that it's clear that you are under the impression that a game is made for a console, and once it's complete it gets "ported" as the complete console version to the PC, as you keep saying "ported from" hence my replies.

This is how most lay people think it works, which is why we see so many people foaming at the mouth about "CONSOLE PORTS". This is definitely not how it works.

The fact that you're not well versed on this subject has meant you're not really getting what I'm saying, but it's a lot more complex than hardware that appears to be similar on X86.

All your arguing now is terminology. 'Porting' a game is the common term for it, as used by the various reputed website article links I gave above. It's what most people understand as converting a game from one platform to another. Only a fool would believe a Xbox1 game, setup for a controller and for the xbox live system could simply be copied in it's entirety to the PC simply because of the shared x86 architecture and similar hardware.

Why you assumed I meant that by 'porting' is questionable, though I assume your just a pedantic troll.

I mentioned GTA5 in one of my first ports here. A game that's been released on the previous generation of consoles as well as the PS4. The PC release date has been delayed and pushed back and will end up releasing several months after the PS4 version, so it's obvious, even to a small child, that it's not a simple affair to port the game.

Here's my post at which you launched your pedantic troll attack:

The new consoles are both 8 core systems. As more and more games get ported from the consoles to PC, we'll see 6/8 core support and utilization skyrocket.

When that happens, the x99 range will obliterate your 2500k, though it will still take a few months/year to get a decent amount of games.

Looking forward to see how GTA5 runs on the PC, how many cores it will use etc.

You just admitted that you actually agree with me:

I've not once said that the hardware configuration of the consoles isn't going to have a carry over the development of PC games. Game engines will (and are being) be made to take advantage of the setup that the consoles have got, which will definitely have a carry over. This isn't what you've been saying though.

This isn't what you've been saying though.

This isn't what I've been saying? I suggest you read my post to which you first replied. My post was simply about the hardware implications of games developed on PC after their were firstly developed on the new x86 consoles. All you got hung up about is my use of the word 'port', which is rather petty imo, since the majority of people use this word to describe a game that's released on the PC after it's been released on consoles.

 

[spoffle]

All your arguing now is terminology. 'Porting' a game is the common term for it, as used by the various reputed website article links I gave above. It's what most people understand as converting a game from one platform to another. Only a fool would believe a Xbox1 game, setup for a controller and for the xbox live system could simply be copied in it's entirety to the PC simply because of the shared x86 architecture and similar hardware.

Porting is a common term, but it's one used out of laziness. My point again though, the conversion typically doesn't happen.

Why you assumed I meant that by 'porting' is questionable, though I assume you're just a pedantic troll.

You said conversion, which shows you did mean what I suggested. The games aren't "converted". The developer has the source code. They compile a version of a specific platform from the source code. Any builds that are made are made from the source code. So nothing is "converted".

I mentioned GTA5 in one of my first ports here. A game that's been released on the previous generation of consoles as well as the PS4. The PC release date has been delayed and pushed back and will end up releasing several months after the PS4 version, so it's obvious, even to a small child, that it's not a simple affair to port the game.

It should be obvious, even to a small child, that "porting" (converting) doesn't actually happen with what you've said here...

Here's my post at which you launched your pedantic troll attack:

Stop feeling your feelings so much, you weren't attacked.

You just admitted that you actually agree with me:

No I didn't, because you're talking about conversions, and seem to think that a game that's "ported" will line up better with an 8 core CPU on a PC.

This isn't what I've been saying? I suggest you read my post to which you first replied. My post was simply about the hardware implications of games developed on PC after their were firstly developed on the new x86 consoles. All you got hung up about is my use of the word 'port', which is rather petty imo, since the majority of people use this word to describe a game that's released on the PC after it's been released on consoles.

I didn't get hung up in your use of the word port, I'm pointing out that it doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means, and it's important that people understand this because it forms the basis of how people understand how a game is developed. You are backpeddling on what you were suggesting.

I'm saying that there isn't hardware implications due to a game being developed first, and this again shows that you really do think that they take the completed console version and then work on converting it to run on the PC.

The hardware implications are because the console is more powerful, NOT because the games are developed firstly on the consoles. You might want to claim that is being petty and pedantic, but it simply isn't. It's a really sad day when people get upset about accuracy and claim wanting to be accurate is just petty and pedantic.

 

[Dave2150]

Porting is a common term, but it's one used out of laziness. My point again though, the conversion typically doesn't happen.



You said conversion, which shows you did mean what I suggested. The games aren't "converted". The developer has the source code. They compile a version of a specific platform from the source code. Any builds that are made are made from the source code. So nothing is "converted".



It should be obvious, even to a small child, that "porting" (converting) doesn't actually happen with what you've said here...



Stop feeling your feelings so much, you weren't attacked.





No I didn't, because you're talking about conversions, and seem to think that a game that's "ported" will line up better with an 8 core CPU on a PC.







I didn't get hung up in your use of the word port, I'm pointing out that it doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means, and it's important that people understand this because it forms the basis of how people understand how a game is developed. You are backpeddling on what you were suggesting.

I'm saying that there isn't hardware implications due to a game being developed first, and this again shows that you really do think that they take the completed console version and then work on converting it to run on the PC.

The hardware implications are because the console is more powerful, NOT because the games are developed firstly on the consoles. You might want to claim that is being petty and pedantic, but it simply isn't. It's a really sad day when people get upset about accuracy and claim wanting to be accurate is just petty and pedantic.

I'd highly suggest a dictionary, since you seem to struggle with words.

Your now basing your whole argument on my use of the word 'convert' to describe how games are ported from consoles to PC.

"Convert:
1.change the form, character, or function of something."

Are you suggesting that games do not change form when they are ported from a new generation console to PC?

I've fed the troll enough. Feel free to post away, I'm sure it's great entertainment for the readers here

 

[spoffle]

I'd highly suggest a dictionary, since you seem to struggle with words.

Your now basing your whole argument on my use of the word 'convert' to describe how games are ported from consoles to PC.

Oh lawd, the hilarity. You should at least learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before telling others that they struggle with words so should try a dictionary.

Are you suggesting that games do not change form when they are ported from a new generation console to PC?

Yes, because they aren't ported from consoles. This is just showing that you don't have a clue. They are compiled from the source code.

Now, before you start fixating on the unimportant parts, the important part is "FROM CONSOLES". This does not happen. Let's use GTA 5, as you've mentioned it a few times. They aren't taking the PS4 version and adapting that for PC. They are taking the source code, and compiling that for PC.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by source code, as you're hung up on constantly claiming that they take one version and adapt it to another version.

This is the whole point of why I brought it up in the first place.

If a developer loses the source code for a game they've made, they CANNOT produce builds for it on platforms they never originally compiled it for.

So if Rockstar lost the source code to GTA 5, they couldn't make it for PC, because they DO NOT take an existing console version and "convert" it to another platform.

I've fed the troll enough. Feel free to post away, I'm sure it's great entertainment for the readers here

Oh wow, you have no idea how little you understand the topic you're trying to discuss.

 

[MagicBoy]

Step away from the handbags, gents.

 

[Dave2150]

Oh lawd, the hilarity. You should at least learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before telling others that they struggle with words so should try a dictionary.





Yes, because they aren't ported from consoles. This is just showing that you don't have a clue. They are compiled from the source code.

Now, before you start fixating on the unimportant parts, the important part is "FROM CONSOLES". This does not happen. Let's use GTA 5, as you've mentioned it a few times. They aren't taking the PS4 version and adapting that for PC. They are taking the source code, and compiling that for PC.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by source code, as you're hung up on constantly claiming that they take one version and adapt it to another version.

This is the whole point of why I brought it up in the first place.

If a developer loses the source code for a game they've made, they CANNOT produce builds for it on platforms they never originally compiled it for.

So if Rockstar lost the source code to GTA 5, they couldn't make it for PC, because they DO NOT take an existing console version and "convert" it to another platform.



Oh wow, you have no idea how little you understand the topic you're trying to discuss.

Amusing that you have to resort to being the grammar police, when you made yourself look a fool in the last few posts.

Again, the first post of mine that you responded to was correct and a fair observation of what's developing in the gaming world. I linked several articles backing this up.

I believe you're angry as you misunderstood a simple word ("conversion"). We all make mistakes sometimes, I suggesting reading the first post you made where you quoted me again in the morning, after you've had a good sleep.

 

[233]

Looks at [email protected]

Looks at current Intel offerings

Looks at current games

Sorry Intel no more money for you for a good while

 

[spoffle]

Amusing that you have to resort to being the grammar police, when you made yourself look a fool in the last few posts.

Is it really?

I'd highly suggest a dictionary, since you seem to struggle with words.

I think your hypocrisy is more amusing, considering you tried it and failed yourself.

Again, the first post of mine that you responded to was correct and a fair observation of what's developing in the gaming world. I linked several articles backing this up.

No it wasn't, and no you didn't. The articles didn't say what you seemed to think, except for the one that mentioned how games from the PS3 and 360 era were "buggy" due to being "ported" because of the different processing architectures used on the 360 and PS3.

As I said, that was utter nonsense. What actually happened is that the PS3 ended up typically performing the worse with multiplatform games BECAUSE of its CPU, developers weren't taking the time the fully optimise for because of the unusual nature of it.

This is why first part games looked very good, and usually to a higher standard than 360 first party games, but multiplatform games looked worse.

Just because you've found an article that says that, it doesn't mean it's actually true. The rest of the things you linked to, you simply haven't understood properly.

I believe you're angry as you misunderstood a simple word ("conversion"). We all make mistakes sometimes, I suggesting reading the first post you made where you quoted me again in the morning, after you've had a good sleep.

You must be delusional. I never misunderstood the word conversion at all. I'm telling you that games aren't "converted" or "ported" from the consoles.

You are resisting this because for some reason you want to continue to believe that they are, but it's simply a matter of fact that games aren't actually converted.

You completely ignored my points about source code, which suggests you don't really understand what that means.

 

[Threepwood]

I'm looking forward to yet another year of 2500k action.


2500k @ 4.6 with Xfire 290p here, btw.

 

[spoffle]

Looks at [email protected]

Looks at current Intel offerings

Looks at current games

Sorry Intel no more money for you for a good while

Well there's more to it than this, I think people get the wrong idea because most of what they have stays the same, bar maybe the GPU.

Faster and newer CPUs aren't pointless in terms of games in an absolute sense, it's just that they are beneficial to more demanding situations.

Like much higher resolutions, multiple GPUs, multiple displays. That sort of stuff. For the most part, a typical person who plays games on a PC at like 1920x1080 isn't going to see much of an improvement with quite a few different variations on PC hardware.

 

[Dave2150]

Is it really?



I think your hypocrisy is more amusing, considering you tried it and failed yourself.



No it wasn't, and no you didn't. The articles didn't say what you seemed to think, except for the one that mentioned how games from the PS3 and 360 era were "buggy" due to being "ported" because of the different processing architectures used on the 360 and PS3.

As I said, that was utter nonsense. What actually happened is that the PS3 ended up typically performing the worse with multiplatform games BECAUSE of its CPU, developers weren't taking the time the fully optimise for because of the unusual nature of it.

This is why first part games looked very good, and usually to a higher standard than 360 first party games, but multiplatform games looked worse.

Just because you've found an article that says that, it doesn't mean it's actually true. The rest of the things you linked to, you simply haven't understood properly.



You must be delusional. I never misunderstood the word conversion at all. I'm telling you that games aren't "converted" or "ported" from the consoles.

You are resisting this because for some reason you want to continue to believe that they are, but it's simply a matter of fact that games aren't actually converted.

You completely ignored my points about source code, which suggests you don't really understand what that means.

Just read more of your posts in other threads. Your simply a troll who likes to try and condescend people, even if what they posted is factually correct.

Your not worth another post from me, so consider this my last

The fact that you don't find it incredibly pedantic to criticize the use of the words 'port' and 'convert' to describe how a game is taken from x86 consoles to PC is just petty. 'Converting' is perfectly fine to use on an informal forum such as this one.

I didn't resort to being the grammar police, you did. I pointed out that you didn't understand what the word 'convey' meant. There is a difference between the occasional grammar mistake which I am guilty of (as are most people! ) and not understanding that the word 'convert' or 'port' is an acceptable way to describe taking a game from one platform to the other.

Anyhow, wish I'd read your other posts before I wasted time and energy to reply to someone like you.

 

[spoffle]

Just read more of your posts in other threads. Your simply a troll who likes to try and condescend people, even if what they posted is factually correct.

You're also not posting facts. Which was the whole point.

Your not worth another post from me, so consider this my last

Again.

The fact that you don't find it incredibly pedantic to criticize the use of the words 'port' and 'convert' to describe how a game is taken from x86 consoles to PC is just petty. 'Converting' is perfectly fine to use on an informal forum such as this one.

Nope, as I keep pointing out to you. You think games are taken from the console version and converted to work on the PC.

This does not happen, which is why I have kept saying it to you. It's not pedantic, my point of bringing it up in the first place was because it was obvious that you thought it worked like that.

So no, I'm not actually specifically criticising your usage of "port" and "convert", I am criticising the fact that you think a game is "'convert' to describe how a game is taken from x86 consoles to PC" because they aren't taken from the consoles.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

I didn't resort to being the grammar police, you did. I pointed out that you didn't understand what the word 'convey' meant. There is a difference between the occasional grammar mistake which I am guilty of (as are most people! ) and not understanding that the word 'convert' or 'port' is an acceptable way to describe taking a game from one platform to the other.

Nope, you said convert not convey. Additionally, as I keep saying games ARE NOT taken from one platform to another.

Anyhow, wish I'd read your other posts before I wasted time and energy to reply to someone like you.

If you say so, except that I've simply been pointing out that games development doesn't work how you're insisting. You're the one getting upset about it. So to recap, games aren't taken from consoles to PC, and this is what I am criticising.

 

[Sasahara]

Looks at [email protected]

Looks at current Intel offerings

Looks at current games

Sorry Intel no more money for you for a good while

Well not until Q3 2015, Skylake-K could be the one to go for.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...ylake-processors-for-overclockers-in-q3-2015/

 

[FoxEye]

It's really quite interesting to see if/how they make full use of the consoles 8 cores. I understand (partly) how difficult parallel programming is. It's actually a bit like quantum mechanics. The more you do in parallel, the less each thread knows about the big picture. This spells trouble for things like collision detection, AI, etc, etc.

 

[DragonQ]

It's really quite interesting to see if/how they make full use of the consoles 8 cores. I understand (partly) how difficult parallel programming is. It's actually a bit like quantum mechanics. The more you do in parallel, the less each thread knows about the big picture. This spells trouble for things like collision detection, AI, etc, etc.

That's true but there are plenty of other problems. Firstly, it's conceptually more difficult to design and there are far more potential mistakes to make whilst trying to get all threads synced up and avoid race conditions (hence bugs are more likely). There's also the fact that creating threads creates overhead and any communication between threads also means forcing some threads to wait for others, so you cannot simply assume that splitting a process into numerous threads will be advantageous.

I've done a fair bit of parallel programming but all in .NET, which makes things pretty easy. If you're simply doing a big batch of calculations it's nearly all done for you with the ThreadPool class. It's surely harder in C++ but over the years numerous tools have been introduced as the world of computing has moved increasingly to parallelism.

 

[Vertigo]

OP wanted to know what was new, there ya go I helped.

No he didn't and neither did you. He specifically wanted to know whether the current processors and platforms offered any real benefit for gaming over his i5-2500K. You claim the 5820K option is a "massive upgrade" from his 2500K when, for gaming, it's not at all. It'd cost him circa £700 for a new CPU, mobo & RAM and he'd see very little improvement in gaming performance compared to his current setup.

I know exactly where the OP is coming from - I'm still running an i7-2600K at 4Ghz and it handles everything I throw at it with ease, games included. I've read all the reviews every time a new generation of processors and chipsets arrive and I continue to be underwhelmed. It all seems to be about "power per watt" these days rather than absolute speed. We've got to the point where CPUs offer more than enough grunt for 99% of tasks and it's more about how efficiently they can do it.

 

[theMilitant]

In terms of gaming performance, there's nothing out there that's significantly faster than a 2500k, which is disappointing really. Other chips may be faster in the future once games that are capable of utilising 6 or 8 cores come out, but for the time being, no.

 

[Telecaster]

Are we saying then, that for gaming with a single GPU that an overclocked 2500k will be enough for a good time yet? Even 4k?