Why arent CPU scaling with die shrinks?

[Fjodor2001]

Even AMD doesnt believe the mainstream needs more than 4 cores in 2016/2017 as seen with Zen.

They are launching 8 core Zen SKUs for the consumer segment in 2016.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Well, sure, but you can drop a 4790K in a $50 motherboard with more features and connectivity than anything in 2010 had. How much does a motherboard + cooler cost for an X5680 that will allow it to reach (on average) 4790K performance? And consider that this motherboard is 5 years old and has no warranty.

Yeah your point is well made as the motherboards are crazy high in price now that the Xeons have caught on. but at one point several months ago this was the go to platform for el-cheapo people like me.Believe me if I had the money I would have gone X99 with a shiny new x5960X.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Utter BS. The biggest problem for Intel is people with Intel products not upgrading. And they spend countless billions on R&D to give people a reason to upgrade.

Intel competing with itself. So you think monopoly drives the pace of innovation faster?

That's why we have antitrust laws?

 

[dmens]

Pro-tip: people don't buy Xeons just for the performance.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yeah your point is well made as the motherboards are crazy high in price now that the Xeons have caught on. but at one point several months ago this was the go to platform for el-cheapo people like me.Believe me if I had the money I would have gone X99 with a shiny new x5960X.

You can get a good x99 board + 5820K for not that much more than a mainstream "K" chip + decent Z97 board.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

You can get a good x99 board + 5820K for not that much more than a mainstream "K" chip + decent Z97 board.

I dont know about that a cheap x99 mobo and 5820K comes to about $600 and a z97 mobo and a 4790K comes in around $400. If you can get them cheaper please let me know.

 

[Dave2150]

Utter BS. The biggest problem for Intel is people with Intel products not upgrading. And they spend countless billions on R&D to give people a reason to upgrade.

What did you imagine, static demand like they was selling water?

I don't agree with this.

On the highest mainstream I7 CPU's - more and more of the die is dedicated to an IGPU that is completely pointless for the vast majority of users buying that mainstream I7 CPU.

Intel could instead make the top mainstream I7 CPU have no IGPU, and dedicate much more of the die to additional CPU cores.

Instead, they continue to dedicate more and more of the die to the IGPU - give it another 2 or 3 generations and god knows how large the IGPU will be.

This is almost forcing people onto the HEDT x99 platform, whether they like it or not, which commands a significant premium over Z97/Z170. You have to buy 4 DIMMS for the quad channel memory (to take full advantage of it at least), the X99 motherboards command a significant premium over the mainstream motherboards, etc.

There is no reason other than profit margins, for the top mainstream I7 to have such a large proportion of the die dedicated to a 'useless' feature for many.

 

[Dave2150]

You can get a good x99 board + 5820K for not that much more than a mainstream "K" chip + decent Z97 board.

Add the cost of 4X DDR4 dimms to utilize the quad channel memory, and the price difference between Z97 and X99 increases dramatically.

 

[Dave2150]

They are launching 8 core Zen SKUs for the consumer segment in 2016.

Lets hope to god that these CPU cores are competitive with Intel's.

Imagine the uproar, when Intel are forced to release 6 and 8 core's on the mainstream market Bye bye profit margins from tiny quad core dies.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I dont know about that a cheap x99 mobo and 5820K comes to about $600 and a z97 mobo and a 4790K comes in around $400. If you can get them cheaper please let me know.

Cheapest 4790K + mobo I could find is $439.

Cheapest 5820K + mobo I could find is $575.

That's a $136 difference for 2 more cores + a more robust platform + better quality (most likely) mobo.

 

[BD231]

+1

Thank you some one who knows what I am saying. Some of these rich guys on this forum are just trying to play dumb but im glad I am not the only one seeing the light!!

lol please

What did you buy in 2011 for 150$ that is equal in performance to a 1000$ CPU today? Because its not your 4.7Ghz 2550K.

I bought this thing for $150 in 2011 on a microcenter deal. For gaming and menial tasks yes I'd be getting next to nothing for spending 1k on a CPU right now and from your stance on core count that would prove true to 99% of people who own a similar CPU.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've got to insert myself into the "economics" discussion among ShintaiDK and some others. And I'm going to push the envelope in the direction of another "forum," but just as well I post it here.

The "free-market" paradigm that certain political factions want to push is over-simplified baloney. There are models of "perfect competition" -- in which competition of many buyers and many sellers means only "normal profits" (approaching 0), with survivability replacing profitability as prime motive.

Without oversimplifying (since there are many chip-makers, after all), Intel fits the "dominant firm" profile of imperfect competition -- which is a euphemism for varying degrees of monopoly. With AMD in second-place (and lower prices signaling a significant lag), Intel can afford a certain degree of monopoly pricing. You'll pay the same for a retail processor at the end of its life-cycle as you may at the beginning.

And most likely, it doesn't cost them $1,000 to produce that 5960X, but they're subsidizing their overall R&D effort with their profits -- as a declining average-cost per unit. They still face competition; there aren't any technical or impermeable barriers to entry, but the market "consensus" favors their product; And M$ -- also a "dominant firm" -- is part of the market integration that makes that possible.

They also engage in "price discrimination" by binning product to appeal to a mass-market that can't afford "top-end," and with this, they actually reap more profit just for making affordable models for everyone.

That being said, they could release a "better scaling" multi-core unit, but with items like the hex-core 5820K, who really needs one? Given the answer to that question, who would pay for one?

That being said, the herd of mainstreamers seems to be goo-gah for mobile devices. There have always been issues such as heat, size, speed and so on. They're not going to ignore those factors. And they're certainly not going to ignore that market.

Meanwhile, how many atoms can you fit into a 14nm space? Was it 7, or was it 28? Either way, neither the power reductions nor the thermal design changes have kept up with reductions in size, as they've added more and more transistors with the opportunity.

So for reasons of my own over-generalizations, I wouldn't make other such generalizations such as those flipped into the spotlight here.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They are launching 8 core Zen SKUs for the consumer segment in 2016.

Its in the performance segment. We talk about mainstream.

Intel competing with itself. So you think monopoly drives the pace of innovation faster?

That's why we have antitrust laws?

We get the innovation that 12B$ R&D can give.

Do you even understand what antitrust laws are?

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Cheapest 4790K + mobo I could find is $439.

Cheapest 5820K + mobo I could find is $575.

That's a $136 difference for 2 more cores + a more robust platform + better quality (most likely) mobo.

Plus its going to be like $150-$200 extra for DDR4 vs DDR3 which I already own.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I don't agree with this.

On the highest mainstream I7 CPU's - more and more of the die is dedicated to an IGPU that is completely pointless for the vast majority of users buying that mainstream I7 CPU.

Intel could instead make the top mainstream I7 CPU have no IGPU, and dedicate much more of the die to additional CPU cores.

Instead, they continue to dedicate more and more of the die to the IGPU - give it another 2 or 3 generations and god knows how large the IGPU will be.

This is almost forcing people onto the HEDT x99 platform, whether they like it or not, which commands a significant premium over Z97/Z170. You have to buy 4 DIMMS for the quad channel memory (to take full advantage of it at least), the X99 motherboards command a significant premium over the mainstream motherboards, etc.

There is no reason other than profit margins, for the top mainstream I7 to have such a large proportion of the die dedicated to a 'useless' feature for many.

If you think its pointless, then you can always buy LGA2011.

I think you missed how the world have evolved. There are mobile and server chips. Desktop is just chips from these 2. And its not going to get any better in the future with the ever eroding desktop segment. The desktop users are the dinosaurs. Yet you ask to be treated as premium and wanting cores designed specificly with your needs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I bought this thing for $150 in 2011 on a microcenter deal. For gaming and menial tasks yes I'd be getting next to nothing for spending 1k on a CPU right now and from your stance on core count that would prove true to 99% of people who own a similar CPU.

The 2550K is a 2012 product isnt it. And its not anywhere close to a 1000$ CPU in performance.

http://ark.intel.com/products/65647/Intel-Core-i5-2550K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Yes asking for my needs to be met is what being a consumer is all about.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes asking for my needs to be met is what being a consumer is all about.

Your needs are served in the LGA2011 factor. But I guess your issue is price here and you want some cheap thing. Thats fine if your needs is what the many needs. Obviously its not. And you are not willing to pay what the options in your requirement are priced at.

And it pretty much sums up the issue. Its you being the niche segment that want the wast majority segment to deliver what you demand. Rather than to serve what the wast majority of consumers want.

 

[cbn]

Since we don't live in this perfect world, why are we so far behind? Why is an 8 core CPU (5960X) at 3GHZ cost over $1000?

The reason it costs $1000 is because Intel believed it could get $1000 for it (and Intel was right).

However look at the price of hexcores over time: i7-980X was $999 back in late 2010 and in late 2014 we got a $383 i7 5820K.

Eventually the same price trend will occur with octocore.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Well my needs are the same for the most part except when needing to do video editing then I have to demand more.But for everyday needs today's standards are fine enough for me.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The reason it costs $1000 is because Intel believed it could get $1000 for it (and Intel was right).

However look at the price of hexcores over time: i7-980X was $999 back in late 2010 and in late 2014 we got a $383 i7 5820K.

Eventually the same price trend will occur with octocore.

Not to mention there is a huge performance delta between the 980X and 5820K in the favour of the 5820K

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I know this is off topic a bit but will there be a die shrink for the x99 platform or a cpu refresh of sorts?? still torn between upgrading to x99 or Skylake.

 

[Boze]

Read through this whole thread... seems like everyone's so focused on the OP's actual words, they're not understanding his underlying desire.

He wants such a compelling reason to upgrade that it cannot be ignored. He wants to drop down a chunk of change just be absolutely blown away by the performance delta between what he had and what he will get.

I understand that feeling. For the past 10 years, I've upgraded every five years or so. Each upgrade I "felt", but wasn't just totally blown away. Another 15 to 20 FPS in new games. Premiere and Photoshop processed a little faster... I saved maybe 20% to 30% in time.

I can only remember two times in my life that upgrading felt absolutely magical, and that was going from a Voodoo2 12 MB 3D accelerator to a Voodoo3 3000. It was absolutely retarded. From 30~ FPS to 110 FPS in most games. It was literally 3 to 4 times as fast.

The second time was when I went from two 10000 RPM WD 74.6 GB Velicoraptor drives in a RAID-0 array to two OCZ Agility 60 GB SSDs in a RAID-0 array. It was night & day difference. There were no words to describe to people how much better the SSDs were, they had to come over to my home and experience it themselves.

We haven't had an upgrade like this in a long time. In fact, I can't even remember one in terms of CPUs... I went from an FX-8350 OC'ed to 4.8 gHz on water to an i7-5930K OC'ed to 4.5 gHz. That was huge. I felt it... it was noticeably faster in most tasks, and especially gaming. But it wasn't *jaw-droppingly* faster.

OP wants to see some upgrades that leave you no choice but to upgrade because the performance difference is just that enormous.

 

[Enigmoid]

Plus its going to be like $150-$200 extra for DDR4 vs DDR3 which I already own.

How much RAM do you need?

16 GB DDR3 goes for around $97

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

(with promo code -$8)

16 GB DDR4 goes for $139 -149 depending on 2x8 or 4x4

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

DDR4 premium is ~ 40 -55%.

Though for 16 GB the price differential is around $45. Unless you are using 64 GB RAM $45 is more expensive but not hugely so.

 

[Dave2150]

Cheapest 4790K + mobo I could find is $439.

Cheapest 5820K + mobo I could find is $575.

That's a $136 difference for 2 more cores + a more robust platform + better quality (most likely) mobo.

You conveniently forgot that X99 requires 4 DIMMS to operate it's quad channel memory. You don't 'have' to have 4 dimms, but running only two would limit the platform's performance, who would pay extra for X99 and not utilize it's features?