- Jan 7, 2002
- 3,322
- 0
- 71
My Sandy Bridge is 3 generations old yet it's STILL a powerhouse especially at 5GHz. Anybody else got one and think the same?
Why is my i5 2500K at 5Ghz still so great?
- Thread starter FalseChristian
- Start date
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2009
- 8,386
- 32
- 91
Torn Mind
Lifer
- Nov 25, 2012
- 12,052
- 2,766
- 136
Intel is competing, but against different competitors. There wouldn't be this focus on performance per watt if there wasn't something called mobile computing taking the world by storm. Hence, the advancements are not related to pure performance, but performance per watt.
What anyone "thinks" is hardly the issue. Its about the numbers. And IPC has improved very decently two generations later. The fact that your particular CPU will clock to 5GHz easily is a huge advantage which makes it very competitive, but again that only applies for your particular CPU, not for all SBs.
PhIlLy ChEeSe
Senior member
- Apr 1, 2013
- 962
- 0
- 0
+1
I have an Ivy Bridge 3570K I'm not impressed, so I'm selling it and stepping back. My old 2500K did 5544Ghz on a Maximus Gene and water. Link
The unlocked chips are very board dependent....
Slomo4shO
Senior member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 586
- 0
- 71
Please don't take my statement out of context, those are different market all together... There has be no real increase in performance per watt between Haswell and ivy on desktop for the enthusiast market.
Exactly HOW BIG do you think the enthusiast market is?
What percentage of that enthusiast market is most concerned with performance/watt instead of just straight up performance?
THAT is why Intel doesn't bother with it.
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 7
- 81
While I can understand what you Sandy Bridge lovers are saying from a CPU standpoint regarding clock speeds, my experience with Sandy Bridge are a bit different. My former 2500K only went to 4.7GHz but I ran it at 4.5GHz because it ran a lot cooler and lower voltage.
I would totally not mind going to Haswell. Why? I want the new chipset. I want more native SATA 6Gb/s ports. I currently have three SATA 6Gb/s SSDs and socket 1155 only has two native SATA 6Gb/s ports. It isn't much of a difference, but it matters (somewhat) to me and my use case.
That brings up an interesting point. What if Intel magically comes out with a CPU that uses less power than Haswell and runs cooler than Sandy Bridge, yet performs faster than both stock as well as overclocking higher? Who would buy such a CPU... if it was socket 1156?
I would totally not mind going to Haswell. Why? I want the new chipset. I want more native SATA 6Gb/s ports. I currently have three SATA 6Gb/s SSDs and socket 1155 only has two native SATA 6Gb/s ports. It isn't much of a difference, but it matters (somewhat) to me and my use case.
That brings up an interesting point. What if Intel magically comes out with a CPU that uses less power than Haswell and runs cooler than Sandy Bridge, yet performs faster than both stock as well as overclocking higher? Who would buy such a CPU... if it was socket 1156?
dave_the_nerd
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2011
- 16,992
- 1,620
- 126
What Zap said. (Although I'm fine with IVB's SATA limits for now.)
How "usable" a computer is, is far more frequently a function of I/O and features than raw CPU horsepower.
How "usable" a computer is, is far more frequently a function of I/O and features than raw CPU horsepower.
Slomo4shO
Senior member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 586
- 0
- 71
And where was I making this argument? OP was discussing performance so I responded that the lack of competition being the reason for no real performance gains over the last couple generations. Torn Mind rebuttals and suggests that performance per watt is the focus of competition even though the market segments are completely different and there has be no real drive for power effiency in the consumer desktop market and the results observed are a byproduct of the advancements in the server and mobile lineup.
Does anyone here actually bother to consider the context of the post before replying with gibberish?
It would honestly depend on the performance increases and the perceived benefits of such performance and power efficiency gains. Also, why would anyone want to revert back to Socket 1156?
Last edited:
Blue_Max
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2011
- 4,223
- 153
- 106
It was just so leaps-and-bounds better than anything else at the time - and still amazingly good now. Some minor improvements have been made since (slightly more base speed, noticeably less electricity) but it's not that same quantum leap we felt when the 2500K arrived on the scene.
Since sandy bridge IPC has gone up but Intel downgraded from solder to TIM on each release after which caused overclocks to lower. This is why your 2500k is still amazing.
That and AMD.
That and AMD.
people with i7 920s also agree. however, sata3 and usb3 are nice things to have.
dave_the_nerd
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2011
- 16,992
- 1,620
- 126
If you were doing 8% YOY with your 401k, you'd be ecstatic.
Interesting:
http://preshing.com/20120208/a-look-back-at-single-threaded-cpu-performance/
Basically, the '80s and '90s spoiled us.
I wonder what Intel CPU generation will bring the next major leap?
At the peak of the Haswell hype some predicted it to bring SB like improvements, but that didn't materialize. Broadwell is not expected to improve performance much either from what I've heard. But perhaps Skylake will be better in that respect?
At the peak of the Haswell hype some predicted it to bring SB like improvements, but that didn't materialize. Broadwell is not expected to improve performance much either from what I've heard. But perhaps Skylake will be better in that respect?
Which is relevant to yearly CPU performance improvements in what aspect?
You means that sets the trend for what improvements can be expected in all other areas; the max speed of cars, the resolution of TV displays, how far humans can jump, and everything else?
http://preshing.com/20120208/a-look-back-at-single-threaded-cpu-performance/
Basically, the '80s and '90s spoiled us.
Very interesting graphs indeed! But was it only the 80s and 90s where we had impressive performance improvements? Looking at the first graph it seems like performance improvements were decent all the way from 1975 until about 2005 or so, and from then on it has been quite miserable.
Last edited:
Probably if you found a similar graph with GPUs it would follow a similar trend.
The trend with all electronics seems to be to do more with less, as in size, power requirement, etc.
I think the next big jump will be when the alien technology is reverse engineered....Guess it's just a matter of time and who's doing it
WhoBeDaPlaya
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2000
- 7,414
- 402
- 126
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,574
- 10,209
- 126
Doesn't Haswell uncouple the L3 cache freq from the CPU core freq, whereas SB clocks them the same?
Yep, but you can clock them 1:1 if you want.
Also Haswell doubled the throughput on L3, which is why it has higher latency. They needed to feed the AVX/2 beast within, Haswell basically doubles the throughput of SB/IVY in AVX and adds support for integer with AVX2 and FMA3.
Haswell can seriously outclass SB/IVY, it just needs the software.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter