Edited to expand thoughts...
It's a question of identifying the bottleneck. SSD's or NVME SSD's got rid of the storage bottleneck. Graphic cards are fast enough unless you're shooting for a solid 60fps at 4K at ultra details At 1080P/1440P there are affordable GPU's that remove it as a bottleneck. CPU's are already fast enough, we just don't take advantage of them fully.
My opinion is faster CPU's have become mostly academic on the desktop since around the release of the 2600K.
1. What problem would a CPU faster than a i7-6700K solve?
2. Will a faster processors really provide us a better overall computing experience?
3. Isn't it more important to address other areas of computing before demanding faster CPU's?
I'll give an example. I want instantaneous computing for all tasks, no more waiting period. No more animated hour glass or spinning coloured wheels. Just Click and BAM!, done. I want to load up a 64 player BF4 Shanghai conquest match instantaneously. I want to get into a game as easy as it was in 1987. Pop the cartridge in the console, power on the NES and hit start to play.
Would a faster processor be necessary to accomplish this?
We have cruddy desktop operating systems designed with legacy support and aimed or optized to run on archaic specs. These popular OS's can't handle real time processing and severely hinder the insanely fast hardware at their disposal. They simply don't take advantage of the hardware.
For example, what's the desire for wanting AVX-512 ISA? I mean it's super cool technology but how would this benefit the average PC user using OS X or Windows 10? What software is written to take advantage of this tech?
Making faster CPU's is simply a band-aid for broken software and OS's. 5 - 8 % IPC bumps every few years is a snail's pace compared to the advances we got 10 years ago. 10 years ago CPU's were already damn fast, only a mild bottleneck where mechanical storage was a massive bottleneck and masked many of the benefits of upgrading.
Tldr; We don't really need faster CPU's yet, we need modern operating systems and better software to properly take advantage of today's hardware. We need faster networks, better integration, better security and smarter design. Upgrading to faster CPU's on the desktop is about as beneficial to us as Bill Gates earning even more money.
It's a question of identifying the bottleneck. SSD's or NVME SSD's got rid of the storage bottleneck. Graphic cards are fast enough unless you're shooting for a solid 60fps at 4K at ultra details At 1080P/1440P there are affordable GPU's that remove it as a bottleneck. CPU's are already fast enough, we just don't take advantage of them fully.
My opinion is faster CPU's have become mostly academic on the desktop since around the release of the 2600K.
1. What problem would a CPU faster than a i7-6700K solve?
2. Will a faster processors really provide us a better overall computing experience?
3. Isn't it more important to address other areas of computing before demanding faster CPU's?
I'll give an example. I want instantaneous computing for all tasks, no more waiting period. No more animated hour glass or spinning coloured wheels. Just Click and BAM!, done. I want to load up a 64 player BF4 Shanghai conquest match instantaneously. I want to get into a game as easy as it was in 1987. Pop the cartridge in the console, power on the NES and hit start to play.
Would a faster processor be necessary to accomplish this?
We have cruddy desktop operating systems designed with legacy support and aimed or optized to run on archaic specs. These popular OS's can't handle real time processing and severely hinder the insanely fast hardware at their disposal. They simply don't take advantage of the hardware.
For example, what's the desire for wanting AVX-512 ISA? I mean it's super cool technology but how would this benefit the average PC user using OS X or Windows 10? What software is written to take advantage of this tech?
Making faster CPU's is simply a band-aid for broken software and OS's. 5 - 8 % IPC bumps every few years is a snail's pace compared to the advances we got 10 years ago. 10 years ago CPU's were already damn fast, only a mild bottleneck where mechanical storage was a massive bottleneck and masked many of the benefits of upgrading.
Tldr; We don't really need faster CPU's yet, we need modern operating systems and better software to properly take advantage of today's hardware. We need faster networks, better integration, better security and smarter design. Upgrading to faster CPU's on the desktop is about as beneficial to us as Bill Gates earning even more money.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter