• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do we REALLY need new CPU's?

U

udontneed2know

Member
With this current generation of CPU's we are seeing quad core, multithreaded wonders that can push 4.5-5.0ghz overclocked and all that jazz. Really, when it comes to the real world do normal consumers really even need this generations processors? Or heck, even last generations?

My brother built a computer 4 or so years ago with a Duo Core 2 CPU running 2.8Ghz and his computer still runs anything he throws at it with relative ease. Windows 7, running like 15 apps at a time, running a server and all that kinds of stuff. So, with this new generation and already hearing about the NEXT generation of CPU's I just wonder. Why? When I build my system out of the i5 2500k overclocked to around 4.2Ghz I really do not see it becoming any type of bottleneck for games or applications for many many years. Most games don't even use the CPU's 4 cores, let alone 6 or 8 or 12 or whatever it coming down the pipe next year.

GPU's are being used of course, but CPU's seem to have hit a point to where really theres no point to upgrading after this generations releases. What do you think?
 
Going from a E6750 at 3.2GHz to a 2500K at 4.8GHz doubled or tripled my framerate in BFBC2, StarCraft 2, MechWarrior Living Legends, etc. CPU-heavy games do exist, more than you might think.

I think you're in the minority with your (completely anecdotal) assessment.
 
Meh, just a thought really.

Your talking about a 2007 processor also. After 4 years of that thing an upgrade to todays CPU's would obviously help alot for todays games utilizing more of the CPU. But even with that Core 2 processor you could still run todays games yes?

So that processor lasted you 4 years. What about regular applications? Did that CPU still do the job or did you upgrade just for gaming?
 
Most people don't need new cpu's. They need to learn to not install crap that bogs down their systems. My work has all dual core p4's they are still quite fast for an average user.

But intel is a business and they need to make money so new cpus for everyone and who is going to turn down cheap fast cpus?
 
NewerBetterFasterCheaper, who can argue with that? Out with the old, in with the new.

It's the upgrade treadmill, and it's how the industry makes its money.

If people stopped buying new CPUs, companies would stop investing in R&D, and the entire industry would stagnate. Do you really want that?

Or do you want cheap 14nm octo-core 10Ghz CPUs, 10TB SSDs, and whatnot? Keep paying your upgrade tax!
 
No we don't. I mean, I personally do, as an original Phenom at 2.4GHz is dated and I can feel it, but most people at Anandtech don't. Anything as fast or faster than C2Q or PhII at 3.2GHz is probably fine. Just fine.
 
How can they make money? Well they would save a ton on R&D by not automatically building that new architecture before the next processor in line is released. That also makes people hesitate. Alot of people day " why upgrade now with the 2500k when next year I can buy the next version? ".

If there was not a next version for awhile, this people would actually buy the latest, greeting thing.

Edit: gotta love iPhone messaging lmao
 
udontneed2know said:
How can they make money? Well they would save a ton on R&D by not automatically building that new architecture before the next processor in line is released. That also makes people hesitate. Alot of people day " why upgrade now with the 2500k when next year I can buy the next version? ".

If there was not a next version for awhile, this people would actually buy the latest, greeting thing.

Edit: gotta love iPhone messaging lmao
Click to expand...

Except people dont generally think like that. They think OOO latest and greatest I want that. If they didn't update stuff as often people would keep systems longer and that means less cash.
 
I'm of the notion that personal computing is only now becoming very interesting.

So yes, bring on the cores, bring on the GHz, bring on IPC improvements, bring it all on; I'm game.
 
munkle said:
Except people dont generally think like that. They think OOO latest and greatest I want that. If they didn't update stuff as often people would keep systems longer and that means less cash.
Click to expand...

Interesting points. I can certainly tell the difference between my old Q6600 @ 3.0 Ghz and my Sandy i7-2600K @ 4.6 Ghz. With the new Z68 mobo features, the old "hourglass" mouse cursor seems to be an archival legacy software remnant.

With my limited income -- I'm retired -- I should temper my enthusiast enthusiasm. And, perhaps, I did -- as the economy went south. I was thirsty to build a new system, putting it off since the last one of 2008.

I didn't "need" it. The old Kentsfield might have carried me through another three years. And here's an interesting observation: I'd been trying to iron a glitch out of the q6600 which occasionally crashed the machine after 24/7 TV-viewing off my tuner-capture card. Then, a friend bought a hex-core Phenom system built by Dell and I slipped over the edge of temptation. I violated my pledge to hold off building this sucker until September -- which is still at least two days away. I "jumped the gun" by about three months.

Turns out the "glitch" on the Kentsfield system derived from an error in over-clocking the nVidia graphics -- an aspect and details which I'd ignored for a couple years, thinking it had been set back to "stock." [Be careful with RivaTuner . . ] By the time I discovered it, I'd already put together my Sandy Bridge.

But it really boils down to this: "I feel . . . the need . . for speed" as they said in "Top Gun." It's not about "need," though. It's a pastime . . . a hobby . . . an obsession. I know a blues guitarist who has 20 expensive guitars, but he only needs about two -- which he uses in his band's gigs.

Part of it is "the quest for the perfect PC." At least for now, this looks fairly "purrrr-feck." I may get an itch, though, when they release a socket-1155 Ivy Bridge, with a hope that I don't need to replace the motherboard . . .

There was a time when I was "all about software," and I'd keep my "main PC" in use for up to five years. Those days are long gone . . . a distant memory . . .
 
Thats why I think our hobby will die in a few years.After socket 2011 goes mainstream and 22nm Ivys are out and cheap we soon wont see a need to upgrade after that.

Intel took 30 years to get 25 gb/sec bandwith and they are going to double that going quad channel next year.Thats why most ram makers have given up as there is no need for over clocking ram anymore and I honeslty dont even see a need for ddr4 other than lower power draw.

if someone has a 5 year old rig and can hold off another 6-8 months and ends up going socket 2011 with ivy bridge he wont need to upgrade his pc for at least 5-7 years.

quad channel ram
22nm 8 core
enough pcie lanes to run 4 ssds in raid and not choke the system at all
2 way pcie 3.0

a well configed ivybridge will handle anything you throw at it for the next 10 years.

heck with 2133 ddr 3 you should see 50 gb/sec memory bandwith
 
We don't NEED new processors, we WANT new processors. When I replaced my Athlon Xp with an Athlon 64, I didn't need the performance gain, I just wanted it. Same thing going from the Athlon 64 > Athlon X2 > Phenom X4 > Phenom II X6. Every time I have ever upgraded my old system still did everything I needed it too, I just felt I wanted something faster and better.

If it wasn't for 3ds max and gaming, I would probably still be sitting on my Athlon X2 5000BE. I actually used that old chip recently and it still handled everything I do just fine, but I would never consider using it in my main rig again when I own a Phenom II X6, and there are far superior processors available.
 
munkle said:
Most people don't need new cpu's. They need to learn to not install crap that bogs down their systems. My work has all dual core p4's they are still quite fast for an average user.

But intel is a business and they need to make money so new cpus for everyone and who is going to turn down cheap fast cpus?
Click to expand...
This. Our school district bought a ton of Dells running Pentium Wolfdales last year. They're completely adequate for what they're being used for (general classroom computer, online research, word processing). Of course, the CAD labs and other more specialized locations are a different story.
 
mmaestro said:
This. Our school district bought a ton of Dells running Pentium Wolfdales last year. They're completely adequate for what they're being used for (general classroom computer, online research, word processing). Of course, the CAD labs and other more specialized locations are a different story.
Click to expand...

Your story brings back an unpleasant memory.

It would be interesting to know the procurement cost per unit on those Wolfie systems. Government could be so much better than it is. I remember when microprocessors were just going mainstream; three years or so after the IBM PC and the Compaq Transportable were household words. IT political appointee decided the agency needed to be awash in "microcomputers" for word-processing. That was the "overt" justification. For "covert," he threw a $25 million contract to a crony in the industry who was building desktops using the obsolete Zilog Z80 . . . for the same price per unit that would have purchased an IBM PC -- or even the Compaq.

Well . . . that's all I have to say unless we adjourn to the "Politics and News" forum . . .
 
Last edited:
I can easily max out (I am talking about 99-100% CPU usage spikes) on my spare E6600 2.4ghz C2D with browsing the Internet, watching HD movies/1080P Youtube flash, etc. While these spikes aren't end of the world, it definitely makes the system feel MUCH slower than C2Q Q6600 @ 3.4ghz was, i7 860 @ 3.9ghz or this i5 are.

I even tested the E6600 system with HD6970 and SSD and it's still slow for my every day needs. So to me, a <3.0ghz C2D is already too slow to be honest. My C2D 2.0ghz laptop is also starting to feel very slow at times. The difference is especially noticeable if you go back and forth between a C2D system and an i5/i7 system. Even in basic every day tasks, I can tell the difference.

At work we had to relegate a Pentium D machine for scrap because it simply couldn't handle WhatIf/GoalSeek analysis across 150-200 excel worksheets within acceptable time frame.
 
RussianSensation said:
I can easily max out (I am talking about 99-100% CPU usage spikes) on my spare E6600 2.4ghz C2D with browsing the Internet, watching HD movies/1080P Youtube flash, etc. While these spikes aren't end of the world, it definitely makes the system feel MUCH slower than C2Q Q6600 @ 3.4ghz was, i7 860 @ 3.9ghz or this i5 are.
Click to expand...

Flash is one of those things that bogs down machines, it's like a necessary evil. You need it for the web but we would be so much better off with out it.
 
munkle said:
Flash is one of those things that bogs down machines, it's like a necessary evil. You need it for the web but we would be so much better off with out it.
Click to expand...

Ya, agreed. I even tried using an HD6970 with the E6600 just for fun, but it didn't seem to help. I am not sure why since it says UVD3 helps to accelerate flash:

UVD 3 dedicated video playback accelerator
MPEG-4 AVC/H.264
VC-1
MPEG-2 (SD & HD)
Multi-View Codec (MVC)
MPEG-4 part 2 (DivX, Xvid)
Adobe Flash
 
OP, i assume you don't work in the enterprise software industry, right?
we need all the power we can get. if our huge batch processes run 9 hours instead of 12, thats money in the bank for us.
we need faster CPUs, faster SSDs for our databases, more RAM, more speed.
 
so because someone's brother is happy with a 2.8 dual core, we all should be? and saying "still runs anything he throws at it with relative ease" is just plain silly. have you ever thought that other may use more demanding games and applications? my E8500 was completely maxed out in some newer games. heck it would make the Ghostbusters game slow to a crawl during heavy physics scenes that a fast quad can handle just fine. really many of us can go on and on about why its nice to have faster cpus as well as other faster stuff too.
 
toyota said:
so because someone's brother is happy with a 2.8 dual core, we all should be? and saying "still runs anything he throws at it with relative ease" is just plain silly. have you ever thought that other may use more demanding games and applications? my E8500 was completely maxed out in some newer games. heck it would make the Ghostbusters game slow to a crawl during heavy physics scenes that a fast quad can handle just fine. really many of us can go on and on about why its nice to have faster cpus as well as other faster stuff too.
Click to expand...

QFT.

My workstations are generally Core i5 750 or newer, with a minimum of 8GB of RAM and an SSD, and under my workload I can still bring them to their knees and make them crawl. Sometimes I even see 4.00-5.00 CPU load (for you Windows users, that's 4-5 'CPUs' at 100%). I buy new computers every year because they save me time, and they are more responsive in general. If I had money, I'd upgrade each system to a minimum Core i7 2600. Between SSDs and large amounts of cheap RAM, we're finally able to keep these new CPU monsters fed, and they are hungry for data to crunch. 😛
 
Borealis7 said:
OP, i assume you don't work in the enterprise software industry, right?
we need all the power we can get. if our huge batch processes run 9 hours instead of 12, thats money in the bank for us.
we need faster CPUs, faster SSDs for our databases, more RAM, more speed.
Click to expand...

10500-16663.gif



Sorry I had to lol.
 
Last edited:
upgrades over the years
Going from socket A to my first AMD a socket 939 WOW.
Going from a Opteron to a C2D at 3600hmz in 2006 Fair.
Now going from C2D dual at 4200hmz to a 1366 at 4200hmz was the biggest speed bumb I ever noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top