Do we REALLY need new CPU's?

[frozentundra123456]

You need faster processors for video editing big time. Today's processors are still way too slow. And everyone at my school is doing video for Youtube, Facebook and other projects. Videos are being taken every day with the iphones and such. New cameras with HD video require even more processing power than standard video.

So what might have been something that only a few people were doing 20 years ago is something that everyone is doing today. Video has become average user. Therefore, you need much faster processors to keep up with the more sophisticated average user.

I agree with your main point. However, you did overstate it a bit. Not "everyone" is doing video processing. Out of the probably 10 close friends and family that I interact with regularly, I am the only one that does video editing or conversion, and that only rarely.
I am also the only one that plays games other than facebook and pogo type games.

However, you are basically correct that eventually applications will arise that require increasingly faster CPUs.

 

[trollolo]

1) read the man pages for robocopy and mklink/J
2) install your new games on the HDD
3) use robocopy to copy the new game to your SSD.
4) rename the folder of your newest game on the HDD to something else
5) put a symlink from the original foldername on the HDD to the copied folder on the SSD
6) when done with that game, copy it back to the HDD (or delete the copy on the SSD)

>mfw i'm expected to do that every time i want to switch from playing CSS to bioshock.

 

[apoppin]

I agree with your main point. However, you did overstate it a bit. Not "everyone" is doing video processing. Out of the probably 10 close friends and family that I interact with regularly, I am the only one that does video editing or conversion, and that only rarely.
I am also the only one that plays games other than facebook and pogo type games.

However, you are basically correct that eventually applications will arise that require increasingly faster CPUs.

i don't agree. i see everything becoming GPU-centric. Move the apps to the GPU and you can speed everything up far beyond what a CPU can ever dream of.

Intel is trying to stay relevant. But i think Nvidia's project Denver has the right idea and ultimately Intel will be left far behind.

 

[Spjut]

I have a Phenom II X4 and am using my PC primarily for gaming...For the most part it serves its purpose well, but it is definitely holding me back in those modern games that only use 2 cores(Starcraft 2, Crysis)

 

[apoppin]

I have a Phenom II X4 and am using my PC primarily for gaming...For the most part it serves its purpose well, but it is definitely holding me back in those modern games that only use 2 cores(Starcraft 2, Crysis)

Phenom II 980 BE keeps up with i7-920 clock for clock at the highest resolution and detail setting. When you drop the resolution, the Intel CPU show their strength.

 

[amenx]

I never looked at my CPU upgrades as a 'need'. They may have improved performance in certain areas, slightly more fps in games, less time to unpack compressed files, etc, but they were never a need. I upgraded because it was fun to buy new hardware, install it, put it through its paces, etc, and yes for just that little bit added performance. If I only upgrade every 6-7 years, then it may turn out to be a need.

 

[kalrith]

Phenom II 980 BE keeps up with i7-920 clock for clock at the highest resolution and detail setting. When you drop the resolution, the Intel CPU show their strength.

<snip>

What GPU is used there? IMO all that graph really shows is that at 2560x1600 resolution, those systems are GPU limited. If you stuck GTX580 SLI in there, then I would guess that the 2560x1600 graph would scale similarly to the 1920x1200 graph.

Different games will have different results as well. The previous poster mentioned Starcraft 2, which is very CPU dependent.

 

[apoppin]

What GPU is used there? IMO all that graph really shows is that at 2560x1600 resolution, those systems are GPU limited. If you stuck GTX580 SLI in there, then I would guess that the 2560x1600 graph would scale similarly to the 1920x1200 graph.

Different games will have different results as well. The previous poster mentioned Starcraft 2, which is very CPU dependent.

GTX 590. GTX 580 SLI wouldn't make that much difference.

That poster in question specifically mentioned Crysis. Crysis is far more GPU-dependent and a very fast GPU at high resolutions will serve you well with an Overclocked Phenom II. Both CPUs were clocked at 3.7gHz; the 980 BE easily managed 4.3GHz

 

[Seero]

Do we really need a computer?

 

[Gryz]

>mfw i'm expected to do that every time i want to switch from playing CSS to bioshock.

No. Win7 + some apps is 30GB or so. At least on my machine it is 25GB. That leaves you with 25GB for your favorite games. That's 3-5 games at least. You can play those without switching locations. Only when you are really "done" with a game, you put it back on the HDD. Don't tell me you play more than 5 games actively in any given month ? If that's not enough for you, pay $40 more for a 90GB disk, and now you can have a "working set" of 6-10 games.

My only point was: you don't need to spend $300 for a 240GB SSD to play games.

 

[Numenorean]

Yes. I want my 8-core system with 32GB of RAM!

 

[lol123]

i don't agree. i see everything becoming GPU-centric. Move the apps to the GPU and you can speed everything up far beyond what a CPU can ever dream of.

Intel is trying to stay relevant. But i think Nvidia's project Denver has the right idea and ultimately Intel will be left far behind.

I don't know where people get the idea that everything could be done faster on a GPU, but it's definitely not accurate.

 

[apoppin]

I don't know where people get the idea that everything could be done faster on a GPU, but it's definitely not accurate.

Not *everything* - i was talking about video editing.

Some things are done better and faster by serial processing - the CPU. However, the computing world is moving toward GPU-centric - a powerful GPU for parallel processing - the tasks that count (editing/graphics) and a relatively weak CPU to keep it fed.

in ten years Intel will be a much smaller company if they keep on in their current direction. They are going to fail in the growth industry - mobile - where the GPU and their competitors excel.

 

[poohbear]

ok i'll bite, this is obviously a troll post as the OP is asking on a forum for tech enthusiasts if we need new hardware.

OP, for YOU, obviously the answer is no. Upgrade cycles have decreased dramatically since the mid 2000s. CPUs can last for 4-5 years now no problem. which is great for the average user. So there u have it.

For ME, and many other enthusiasts and gamers, a faster CPU always helps increase FPS in CPU intensive games, especially RTS games which are mostly CPU intensive. I wouldnt say we need to upgrade every generation, but every other generation sure its needed for the latest games. most new games use quad cores (witcher 2, BFBC, SC2 etc)

 

[Bateluer]

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.

Means nothing if you were already getting 45-60fps on the C2D, and jumping to 90-120 on the SB.

I'm still rocking a wolfdale. I'd like to upgrade, but its just not needed.

 

[cubby1223]

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?

Many businesses still run Pentium 4 machines with no plans to upgrade unless of hardware failure.

 

[aphelion02]

60GB SSD is enough for gaming.
Install all your games on your HDD.
Then for the 1-3 games that you are currently playing, do this:
1) read the man pages for robocopy and mklink/J
2) install your new games on the HDD
3) use robocopy to copy the new game to your SSD.
4) rename the folder of your newest game on the HDD to something else
5) put a symlink from the original foldername on the HDD to the copied folder on the SSD
6) when done with that game, copy it back to the HDD (or delete the copy on the SSD)

There. OS on your SSD. Users folder on HDD. Old games on the HDD. Current game(s) on the SSD. 64 GB is more than enough.

But people don't know these tricks anymore. People don't know how to move files around, how to manage their computer. The more technology advances, the more clueless the average user becomes.

Steammover

 

[tvdang7]

im a laptop user now so the more power efficient the cpu's become the more power they can pack into it. such as i went from a 1.6ghz 720qm to a 2.2ghz 2720qm WITH on die graphics.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Phenom II 980 BE keeps up with i7-920 clock for clock at the highest resolution and detail setting. When you drop the resolution, the Intel CPU show their strength.

No doubt Phenom II is sufficient good for GPU limited games but not paying $50 extra over a 980 BE for a 2500K is nuts IMO.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I've been mostly playing Day of Defeat Source lately.....so yeah no need.

I doubt Red Orchestra 2 will need an upgrade as Unreal 3 runs great on my rig.

Depending on how good BF3 is, maybe....I'm not holding my breath. Also by that time new AMD CPUs/GPUs will hopefully hit the market (waiting to see results of that as well)

 

[soccerballtux]

What??? This makes no sense to me. I would say most people are still running dual core CPUs. If there was some great conspiracy between intel and the gamemakers to make people upgrade, they could just write the code so that you need a quad core at 3.0 ghz.

doesn't work like that, my point is if they wrote it so it could scale with all available CPU cores (Starcraft in particular would be extremely easy to do this on given all the hundreds of units on screen that cause the game to slow down in 8 player games) then there would be NO point in buying anything better than a $90 AMD quad core chip.

 

[aigomorla]

lulz.... those of you guys who know me... should be amazed.

this 990X is going 1 yr+ on me soon....

For those of you who know me... me holding on to a cpu for 1 yr+ is quite amazing.

 

[Smartazz]

A friend of mine is still happy with his Phenom X4 and he only plays games on the PC. Some PC gamers still have the mentality that if it runs their games, even on miniumum details, it's not time to upgrade.

 

[Tweak155]

The laptop market has a ways to go. I jumped in on the I7 bandwagon on the laptops and you can tell the slow downs it has. So at least we have room for noticeable improvement somewhere

 

[trollolo]

im a laptop user now so the more power efficient the cpu's become the more power they can pack into it. such as i went from a 1.6ghz 720qm to a 2.2ghz 2720qm WITH on die graphics.

what the hay does qm on the end of a processor name mean? i've got an i5 450 @ 2.4ghz, and i'm seeing 2nd gen i7's clocked at 1.8ghz. is it some kind of stupidly underpowered processor in the name of battery life?