Soldato
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Did Intel Make A Big Mistake With sandy Bridge?
- Thread starter Andy7
- Start date
Associate
Still no reason to change my 2600k sandy @4.5ghz with low voltage (could probably push to 4.8-5ghz if I wanted but no need)
If 5820k drops in price then I may be tempted - 6 cores / 12 Threads at 4.5ghz would be sweet.
If 5820k drops in price then I may be tempted - 6 cores / 12 Threads at 4.5ghz would be sweet.
I'm a huge enthusiast when it comes to computer technology and especially CPU technology , but as others have said in this thread Intel has not really made any huge advancements in overall CPU performance, yes IPC is up and power efficiency is better but to a person looking at it sensibly with a SB chip there is absolutely no reason to update to any of the 4 core CPUs they have provided, the only real worthwhile upgrade path is 6 core or the 8 core CPUs now.
My personal opinion is they need to drop dual core and make quad core the lowest bracket CPUs now and make 6 core the standard bracket and 8 core the EE (Extreme Editions) chips. I don't understand why they are still pushing quad core as the standard bracket when we have now had quad core for a very long time and it's time to move on to 6 or more cores as standard. This will also encourage programers to write code that is better multithreaded.
My only true upgrade path is the new Haswell-E and X99 Chipset anything else is a total waste of time and money and sadly they are still going to push quad core in their next line up as the standard bracket in 2015 as Skylake.. At this rate it won't be till 2020 till they make 6/8 core standard.
**Waits patiently for the 6 cores and 8 cores to become realistic prices and then I'm upgrading, this behavior from Intel is only going to stagnate the market as did Windows 8 thanks to Microsoft.**
My personal opinion is they need to drop dual core and make quad core the lowest bracket CPUs now and make 6 core the standard bracket and 8 core the EE (Extreme Editions) chips. I don't understand why they are still pushing quad core as the standard bracket when we have now had quad core for a very long time and it's time to move on to 6 or more cores as standard. This will also encourage programers to write code that is better multithreaded.
My only true upgrade path is the new Haswell-E and X99 Chipset anything else is a total waste of time and money and sadly they are still going to push quad core in their next line up as the standard bracket in 2015 as Skylake.. At this rate it won't be till 2020 till they make 6/8 core standard.
**Waits patiently for the 6 cores and 8 cores to become realistic prices and then I'm upgrading, this behavior from Intel is only going to stagnate the market as did Windows 8 thanks to Microsoft.**
Soldato
Snap. I've yet to see any compelling reason to retire my 2500K.
I'm in the same boat too. X99 and a six core Haswell-E is the only worthwhile upgrade IMO, but as IPC gains are smaller than those from the two additional cores I am just not sure it's worth it when mainly gaming.
This is the longest I've ever kept a CPU, and I've had PCs since the mid 90s. On the plus side, there's very little - if anything - that it struggles to run.
The problem isn't that post Sandy Bridge stuff has been weak, the problem is that Sandy Bridge was overrated.
The IPC jump from 1st gen i7 to SB is roughly in line with any other jump, the big difference that gave SB it's wow! factor was that the out of the box clocks were higher then it's predecessor.
SB did clock higher but in all honesty if you sat somebody in front of two identical looking systems with a 4.5GHz SB and a 4.2GHz 1st gen i7 they would be hard pushed to spot the difference in most games/tasks.
The IPC jump from 1st gen i7 to SB is roughly in line with any other jump, the big difference that gave SB it's wow! factor was that the out of the box clocks were higher then it's predecessor.
SB did clock higher but in all honesty if you sat somebody in front of two identical looking systems with a 4.5GHz SB and a 4.2GHz 1st gen i7 they would be hard pushed to spot the difference in most games/tasks.
Last edited:
'Downhill' suggests they have regressed which is clearly not the case. Their objective and focus hasn't been on raw MHz for some time, and they have been very clear about that. Increasing energy efficiency and lowering power consumption isn't exactly negligent, and it is where they need to go to remain ahead and relevant.
MHz is only one factor to performance. Its like revs on an engine. MHz/speed/performance get conflated a lot when they shouldn't.
edit: Besides new instruction sets can offer massive performance improvements for specific workloads. It just so happens that your typical consumer software doesn't use or has no need for them.
Last edited:
^
I think it's also fair to say that software demands for CPU power is not growing at the same rate these days, particularly where games are concerned.
There are more niche areas like rendering, encoding and multi GPU that will still eat up all the CPU you can give them, but for the average user and gamer SB provides pretty much all the power that's needed.
I think it's also fair to say that software demands for CPU power is not growing at the same rate these days, particularly where games are concerned.
There are more niche areas like rendering, encoding and multi GPU that will still eat up all the CPU you can give them, but for the average user and gamer SB provides pretty much all the power that's needed.
Maybe intel are as frustrated as we are?
The problem might actually be technology limitations. Moores law is slowly coming to an end dropping down silicone size is becoming harder and harder and the new technology to do away with silicone limitations just isnt there yet. Its not just an intel problem look at the gfx card segment with nvidia and amd year on year minimal performance gains everyone is hoping 20/16 nm is going to bring in big performance improvements im not convinced. Personally i dont think its just these big companies dragging their heels it is a real problem similar to the car industry and oil issues the last 30 years have skyrocketed performance and efficiency in just about every manufacturing sector we have but theres only so much you can do with what is 100 year old tech something new needs to come along unfortunately it isnt there yet, in the meantime before the future tech comes along weve just got to deal with minimal gains
Hand on heart do you really think that if someone like intel could break into bio mech tech or carbon nano cpus that could smash everything then they wouldn't? Of cause they would theyd get it out there get a patent on it and run the next 100 years of their company doing nothing but selling royalties as much as we like to think big companies drag their heels it would be business suicide to do so
The problem might actually be technology limitations. Moores law is slowly coming to an end dropping down silicone size is becoming harder and harder and the new technology to do away with silicone limitations just isnt there yet. Its not just an intel problem look at the gfx card segment with nvidia and amd year on year minimal performance gains everyone is hoping 20/16 nm is going to bring in big performance improvements im not convinced. Personally i dont think its just these big companies dragging their heels it is a real problem similar to the car industry and oil issues the last 30 years have skyrocketed performance and efficiency in just about every manufacturing sector we have but theres only so much you can do with what is 100 year old tech something new needs to come along unfortunately it isnt there yet, in the meantime before the future tech comes along weve just got to deal with minimal gains
Hand on heart do you really think that if someone like intel could break into bio mech tech or carbon nano cpus that could smash everything then they wouldn't? Of cause they would theyd get it out there get a patent on it and run the next 100 years of their company doing nothing but selling royalties as much as we like to think big companies drag their heels it would be business suicide to do so
Last edited:
I'm sure their huge sacks of money will soothe their pain somewhat!
Associate
I never bothered with the first run of Haswell chips, but my 4790k temps are pretty much the same as the 3770k in my other PC. I didn't really expect the temps to be lower as it's clocked faster out the box.... But neither Haswell or Ivy can contend with good old sandy when it comes to temps (without delidding).
Last edited:
Soldato
If Intel knew what they know now we would either not have SB or they would have just been about to launch it.
The fact is that their Westmere Xeons put up a very good show for themselves. More than any AMD product, especially the hex Westmeres.
There really was no need at all to release SB when they did IMO. They could have saved it for now and skipped IVB and Haswell.
Haswell chips are problematic, something not seen on SB. Why they've launched Haswell E is beyond me tbh.
New board and chipset yeah, I can dig that, but why not just do X99 for your existing 2011 owners and just refresh the CPU you already had.
Once again we're getting server hand-me-downs and they're not proving to be good enough to be a step forward.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
Upgrade itches aside, I can't see myself upgrading to anything beyond the 3930k anytime soon and that is getting on to 3 years old now. The gulftown hexcores (980x, 990x and the like) were equally impressive and I doubt anyone on those needs to upgrade now either. Maybe Skylake will be a large performance jump but given what we have come to expect from Intel, that might be ambitious.
Correct me if I am wrong on this:
If you have an i7 2600k clocked at 4.5Ghz or over you will not see a difference in gaming with Ivy or Haswell?
As for the newer 6 and 8 core chips I doubt you you would gain much with them gaming wise either.
If you have an i7 2600k clocked at 4.5Ghz or over you will not see a difference in gaming with Ivy or Haswell?
As for the newer 6 and 8 core chips I doubt you you would gain much with them gaming wise either.
Caporegime
Yup pretty much.
Caporegime
Probably not, benchmarks such as 3d mark 11 there will be an increase in physics/combined. As so few games use multithreading, you wont notice a big difference with x99 either.
This is exactly what I am trying to point out and is the purpose of my thread.
Intel have not given us anything better than Sandy Bridge from years ago.
Caporegime
Those buying X99 are buying into it for more than its ability as a gaming cpu. Tasks like rendering, encoding will show good gains. But in the mainstream range, for predominately gaming use you could still get by grand on an old cpu such as the i7 920 bloomfield. I have a 930 based second rig, and with a single 780 taken from my spec in sig. Theres no difference i can see compared to the same card in my 4790k setup for games.
Caporegime
CPU hardware had got ahead of software (for gaming) in the last few years anyway. I don't mind a period of things slowing down, means a drive to make better use of the hardware we have and spending less on upgrades.
RAM and SSDs are similar areas right now. DDR4 doesn't really offer anything usable at the moment and the increase in SSD speeds are pretty imperceptible.
I think we will see more slow down as die shrinks are more and more difficult, desktop profits are declining and power efficiency becomes the new goal.
RAM and SSDs are similar areas right now. DDR4 doesn't really offer anything usable at the moment and the increase in SSD speeds are pretty imperceptible.
I think we will see more slow down as die shrinks are more and more difficult, desktop profits are declining and power efficiency becomes the new goal.
Last edited:
Caporegime
last stand out cpu for me was the i7 920 d0,next decent chips were the 2600k
things since then have just been mediocre,the sb hex cores were also decent
things since then have just been mediocre,the sb hex cores were also decent