Will there be faster (>10% performance) processors within 3 years?

[toyota]

Many enthusiasts? The number is extremely negligible. It is a rounding error. That is how small a niche "enthusiast" are. I am an enthusiast. I also am a realist. The cpu's of today are totally overkill. Do you think Intel or any company for that matter are interested in what amounts to .0000001% of the computer users on this planet like you claim to be? They are going to pour billions into making cpu's that there are virtually no market for? That is not how any successful business runs.

I just gave you some very simple examples of how even the fastest cpus are NOT overkill. I dont give a rat's behind about looking at it from the company's perspective. I am only replying to your self centered view that nobody needs anything faster for anything at all. even if i did not personally want something faster I at least have enough sense to know that others may want and need it. seriously get over your freaking self and accept that simple concept.

 

[Idontcare]

Don't you know? There are only three enthusiasts: an Intel fanboy controlling thousands of pro-Intel accounts, an AMD fanboy controlling thousands of pro-AMD accounts, and Idontcare.

Many enthusiasts? The number is extremely negligible. It is a rounding error. That is how small a niche "enthusiast" are. I am an enthusiast. I also am a realist. The cpu's of today are totally overkill. Do you think Intel or any company for that matter are interested in what amounts to .0000001% of the computer users on this planet like you claim to be? They are going to pour billions into making cpu's that there are virtually no market for? That is not how any successful business runs.

You already have proof that the enthusiast market is large in marketshare and significant in market revenue by the fact that Intel makes and sells "K" processors, including the recently revamped and released Devil's Canyon processor, as well as it 6-core and 8-core extreme parts.

 

[Lepton87]

I don't know why you people are so skeptical because Intel managed to increase the performance by not only 10% but 20% over the last 3 years(see for yourself http://anandtech.com/bench/product/287?vs=1260 at the cost of depleting its rather large clock-speed headroom though, on the other hand the 22nm process actually clocked a bit worse than the 32nm and the 14nm is expected to improve upon the 22nm so there should still be some advance on the clock speed front and the IPC should also increase a bit so I'd say a 14nm skylake at 4.2/4.6 should easily outperform a 4790k by more than 10% it won't probably be as much as a 4790k over a 2600k as that was done by essentially using all clock-speed potential while 2600K had a lot more headroom left and they could have easily released a SB at a stock clock-speed of over 4GHz but I guess they would have had to increase its TDP to 120W/140W that's probably the reason why they didn't do it other than no competitive pressure. I expect at least a bit more than 10% performance increase in 3 years both for the mainstream and the enthusiast platforms. On the enthusiast platform at least for the Extreme CPU I expect even a broadwell to bring more than 10% performance increase for the 8 core version by increasing its clock-speed to match their 6 cores CPUs, right now 8-core HW-E is clocked lower than its 6-core brethren to keep it within the same TDP so that and the expected 5% IPC improvement should easily provide greater than 10% performance increase, the 6-cores versions likely won't benefit as much because I don't expect their clock-speed to improve as much because they aren't limited by their TDP to the same degree as the 8-core version is.

 

[ehume]

Well, we pretty much still are all on Win 7-64. While I may not comment on the progress since the SB gen, my 4.3GHz 4770k is quite a bit faster than my 4GHz i7 860 --- a lot more than the difference between 4.3 and 4 GHz. And then my 4.5 GHz 4970k with Win 8.1 -- it just feels significantly faster still, despite being at the other end of a wireless connection -- although I think some of that is from a quicker OS. It seems that every year we are asking more of our apps. They do more, and we demand more, and are impatient with the time needed to compute. I had a 486 on Win95 that ran like a striped ape, but looking back, we didn't ask as much from our software. So I am looking forward to a couple of gens from now. I don't think the benchmarks tell the whole story. We demand that our machines do zigzag computing -- a snip here, a snap there. And that's where our machines are steadily improving. I don't see the need for steadily improving computers stopping any time soon.

 

[escrow4]

Don't you know? There are only three enthusiasts: an Intel fanboy controlling thousands of pro-Intel accounts, an AMD fanboy controlling thousands of pro-AMD accounts, and Idontcare.

I can say right now, its more like hundreds of thousands. :awe:

 

[howtofreetravel]

When are quantom pcs coming

?

 

[Ajay]

Intel's Diane Bryant promises a >20% performance gain with every generation.

Ms. Bryant was, of course, speaking to server CPUs as GM of DCG. She was talking about the 20% average increase in gen to gen throughput at a given price point. In any case, while impressive, it's an apple to oranges comparison visa vi gen to gen peak performance in desktop (different core counts, TDPs, etc.).

At this point, it's not clear to me that we are getting a 'K' model Broadwell, so we may have till the LGA Skylakes appear in order to see what the peak throughput increase is on 14nm.

 

[Techhog]

Are you talking about the next 3 years or in 30 years?

Will this 200% increase apply to general code, or specific programs only. D:

Don't ever listen to Nosta. He's a little... Well, he's not all there.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

powerfull enough era

bad days for the 0,1% of compulsive enthousiast buyers who like to compare their big benchs

Maybe powerful enough for you. But I do work where I could GREATLY benefit from oh... I don't know, another 1000% increase?

Also the push for VR is going to require better hardware. Today it seems we have the bare minimum to provide a satisfactory experience. But in VR, running 4K or 8K resolution, and as high as frame rate as possible (well beyond 120Hz) is going to far more important there than on the desktop monitor. It may be a fad, but I hate it when people compare modern VR to the 80s and 90s as if they had dual 1080p+ screens in front of their eyes running 100+ fps back then.