Intel shifting to two year cycles for desktop with no Broadwell being released?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Sep 2013 at 11:37

More details here:

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32524-broadwell-won’t-make-it-to-desktop

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 17 Sep 2013 at 12:26

So still a haswell 'refresh'

And

According to Intel’s own figures, the average PC is now more than four years old, the PC market is mature and upgrade cycles are getting longer, which explains the shift to a two-year cycle in the desktop segment.

Yes but that's due to a slow down in per cycle performance. Give a performance increase that is worth changing for and people will upgrade.

edit: What we really need is AMD to bring out a Steamroller chip that is equal in performance and undercuts on price. Hopes are not high.

joeyjojo · 17 Sep 2013 at 12:29

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Yes but that's due to a slow down in per cycle performance. Give a performance increase that is worth changing for and people will upgrade.

More to do with a "slow down" in requirements I think. The average PC runs a web browser and maybe some music library software, which run just fine on 5-7 year old hardware.

Doomedspeed · 17 Sep 2013 at 12:50

I actually think this is great news..

The performance gap between Sandy,Ivy and Haswell was so minimal that even many 'enthusiasts' are happy running on 2-4 year old CPU's.

I hope that skylake is more a sandy - haswell jump (15%+) rather than a Ivy-Haswell (5%-7%).. 2 years of full development rather than a years work and wait a year..

mjones1 · 17 Sep 2013 at 13:21

Doomedspeed said:
I actually think this is great news..

The performance gap between Sandy,Ivy and Haswell was so minimal that even many 'enthusiasts' are happy running on 2-4 year old CPU's.

I hope that skylake is more a sandy - haswell jump (15%+) rather than a Ivy-Haswell (5%-7%).. 2 years of full development rather than a years work and wait a year..

I still fail to see how this is good news. :confused:

Performance increases are still performance increases also Intel doesn't work on a 2 year basis for their processors they still do tick tock at the moment.

Ethermaster · 17 Sep 2013 at 13:26

This actually makes sence for Intel and their customers due to the performance increase between chips means there so no need to actually upgrade, and therefore stopping the moaning about Intel not sticking a socket very long. Intel are currently enjoying the high end desktop CPU market all to themselves again as AMD doesn't currently have an answer (hopefully they will soon with the names that they have brought back in, but is it a case of too little to late).

AMD do see Haswell tho as an APU i.e a CPU and GPU all in one so you never know..... we're just has to wait see what happens to FM2.

As for Intel's R+D team I bet they have been begging for a slow down of Tick,Tock forages as it gives them the time to develop the chip and chipset bring a much better product to the market.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

monkeys · 17 Sep 2013 at 13:27

I hope AMD catches up. The main reason many refuses to upgrade is due to the slow cycles already.

Doomedspeed · 17 Sep 2013 at 13:30

mjones1 said:
I still fail to see how this is good news.

Products won't be rushed out to meet the deadline..

And it may/will impact on software requirement too becuase if the improve over the new 2 year gap is only 5%-10% (as it currently is year on year) a 4 year old CPU should still be pretty capable...

Unless intel are trying to impliment "users must buy every generation to run games/demanding apps properly" but in that cas ethe performance increase should be phenominal.

FrankJH · 17 Sep 2013 at 13:56

+1

For the last few years Intel have been doing a new cycle /half cycle because they could, not because it was required.

Im still running a 920 version of i7 (admittedly with an 7970) and its more than good enough for the most recent games, even if I don't have the fastest ram, or the best SSD that's available today (let alone USB3 which imo isn't that necessary either)

Im an engineer at heart and Im dying to get hold of some new kit, but from a performance pov I don't need it.

panyan · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:07

FrankJH said:
Im still running a 920 version of i7 (admittedly with an 7970) and its more than good enough for the most recent games

+1

Im running a 2500k and i havent even considered upgrading because I know that ill be disappointed. For me to buy a new cpu it would have to be something that offered a proper step up from what ive got now.

Doomedspeed · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:21

panyan said:
Im running a 2500k and i havent even considered upgrading because I know that ill be disappointed. For me to buy a new cpu it would have to be something that offered a proper step up from what ive got now.

Im in the same boat as this guy..

JediFragger · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:24

We all is

2500/2600/2700k's are just too damn good

Scougar · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:36

Doomedspeed said:
I actually think this is great news..

The performance gap between Sandy,Ivy and Haswell was so minimal that even many 'enthusiasts' are happy running on 2-4 year old CPU's.

I hope that skylake is more a sandy - haswell jump (15%+) rather than a Ivy-Haswell (5%-7%).. 2 years of full development rather than a years work and wait a year..

Try telling that to someone running Planetside 2, and you'll understand quickly that sandybridge doesn't perform as well as Ivy or Haswell. (i.e. you need every single dang frame you can get as the game is so cpu limited and the modern chips are much better with PS2.)

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:48

Scougar said:
Try telling that to someone running Planetside 2, and you'll understand quickly that sandybridge doesn't perform as well as Ivy or Haswell. (i.e. you need every single dang frame you can get as the game is so cpu limited and the modern chips are much better with PS2.)

SOE is redeveloping the engine to thread better,as a PS4 version is being released. Moreover,throwing hardware at a problem is not always the best way to solve it. Remember,most gamers don't overclock,and have £180+ CPUs, so most PS2 players are going to have issues one way or another ATM.

Even a 10% improvement,for a normal Core i5,is like the difference between 27FPS and 30FPS during a big battle which is not that much.

Making PS2 thread better means,the bulk of players will benefit,especially those running CPUs under a Core i5.

Gripen90 · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:52

Seems like a sensible step. Let the CPU's live longer and when the new come make 'em faster !.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Sep 2013 at 14:54

Gripen90 said:
Seems like a sensible step. Let the CPU's live longer and when the new come make 'em faster !.

Plus companies will need to make sure they optimise better for the existing CPUs too.

shadow_boxer · 17 Sep 2013 at 16:18

Sounds like good news.

bru · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:15

This is definitely not great news for desktop enthusiasts. It will make things slower and boring on the desktop side but GPUs will still come out every year, making GPU updates for gamers look like a good way of boosting performance.

Methinks that the days of GPU's every year are numbered, as AMD have shown with this 21 month gap between generations.

swiftmetal · 18 Sep 2013 at 23:53

It sounds like nothing but good news to me.

Orcvader · 19 Sep 2013 at 00:12

I think it's a good thing, I feel Intel has been too fast trying smaller processes and it gets more difficult the smaller it gets, they're going to hit that wall sooner or later. Maybe this will also allow them more time to shift away from silcon?

I think we're at a level where performance is pretty much good enough for the average user, even on the low end CPUs. Maybe this will also allow software to catch up...