Gaming/Simulations have very little benefit for Intel's quest to just keeping adding more cores and lowering the frequency. Desktop consumers want to see more than 7% gain after 3+ years of CPU "progress" ... adding cores solves NOTHING for games/simulations.
Best stable OC for the 5960X is around 4.3Ghz, the 3960X is 4.8Ghz (under common cooling solution, not extreme ones) ... performance difference is only 7% ... so 3+ years on CPU progress is only producing a 7% gain? Most of that gain is probably related to the chipset X99 and not the CPU.
Consumers want higher frequency less cores, that's what works best for desktop computing, games, simulations. Because this doesn't fit your marketing strategy isn't a justification to NOT provide what consumers really want ... more die space, higher frequency.
I would much rather pay $1000 for a 4 core CPU operating at 6Ghz, than 8 CPUs operating at 4.3 Ghz.
What do you guys think?
CG
Anyone have a clue of the power of these upcoming CPU's ? Which one will be the one to upgrade to?In the meantime, it looks like here’s the unofficial rodmap for new Intel chips for the next few years (if
the rumors are correct):
2016 – 14nm “Kaby Lake” (Tock)
2017 – 10nm “Cannonlake” (Tick)
2018 – 10nm “Icelake” (Tock)
2019 – 10nm “Tigerlake” (Tock)
2020 – 7nm TBD (Tick)
2021 – 7nm TBD (Tock)
2022 – 5nm TBD (Tick)
Unofficial Intel timeline: 7nm chips in 2020, 5nm in 2022? http://liliputing.com/2016/01/unofficial-intel-timeline-7nm-chips-in-2020-5nm-in-2022.html
Anyone have a clue of the power of these upcoming CPU's ? Which one will be the one to upgrade to?
Thank you,
CG
Unofficial Intel timeline: 7nm chips in 2020, 5nm in 2022? http://liliputing.com/2016/01/unofficial-intel-timeline-7nm-chips-in-2020-5nm-in-2022.html
Anyone have a clue of the power of these upcoming CPU's ? Which one will be the one to upgrade to?
Thank you,
CG
There were also significant differences on a lower than microarchitectural level, P4 used more power consuming logic (does "domino logic" and "low voltage swing" ring any bells?) vs. Nehalem's cooler but slower static CMOS logic.
Problem is, somethings simply are not, and never will be, parallelizable. ST is always going to matter somewhere.
Personally, I would focus on getting a much of the latency out of the cache systems (and, on the oem side, getting the fastest I/O I could) as possible. Perceived speed often differs from on-paper specs. Lots of low-latency, high-associativity cache would help.
Just finished Asus RealBench run at 4.5ghz stable.
Tomorrow will be the 13th of April, 2016 A.D. ^^Nobody here can predict the future.
Sorry, my fault. If you say 4500 Mhz is that the same as saying 4.5Ghz?It's "MHZ" got "GHZ", I'm scared to even read on. Welcome to Tom's Hardware!!!D:
Sorry, my fault. If you say 4500 Mhz is that the same as saying 4.5Ghz?
Tomorrow will be the 13th of April, 2016 A.D. ^^
Intel's quest to just keeping adding more cores and lowering the frequency.
Wait... Intel is on a quest to keep adding cores? It's funny how all I see at the store for under $300 is a quad core.
Indeed, it's absolutely pathetic that they have 22 core server CPU's that turbo up to 3.6 and mainstream sits moldering at 4 core...
Server CPUs are commercial, which means they are completely different in just about everything from consumer CPUs, you just can't compare that, it's something like asking why Ford Mondeo does not come with towing capacity of Ford F-450.Indeed, it's absolutely pathetic that they have 22 core server CPU's that turbo up to 3.6 and mainstream sits moldering at 4 core...
Indeed, it's absolutely pathetic that they have 22 core server CPU's that turbo up to 3.6 and mainstream sits moldering at 4 core...