It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The CPU market sucks in my POV

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Let's be forward. I am looking for vindication or a solution to a problem I have been having. I am intel focused by the way. My problem is: the CPU market seems stagnant for the past 7 years or at least thats how I feel. I have been looking to up[grade my cpu since 2014 but the price point seems predatory. I've been trying to find a solid 15-25% upgrade for my CPU at the same price point I got it at when in launched in 2011. Awkwardly, even in 2014, at the same price, I would be getting a product that offered the same performance. As of 2104 the jumps have been minimal until the 8*** series came out from intel.

Two examples of processors at the same price point that offer very minimal performance even though there is 4-5 years between.


i5-7400
cpu.userbenchmark.com...
www.cpubenchmark.net...
i5-6400
cpu.userbenchmark.com...
www.cpubenchmark.net...

Am I expecting too much for wanting 15-25% performance gain after 5 years for the same price?

Now the issue I have is that even if I wanted to upgrade to the 8*** series, I need a new MOBO and ram to go along with it so the price went up $200 alone just from those parts.

: / anyway just shooting the ****




posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17




Am I expecting too much for wanting 15-25% performance gain after 5 years for the same price?


At the same price? Yes. Inflation is a big problem , and it's only going to get worse.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Well you do have a dilemma at your feet. To stay in the Intel community you are going to have to really shell out some money.
Your best bet may be to go AMD but that would take you away from your focus and I am right where you are with not wanting to leave Intel.
You could get a used processor but who really wants to do that? You may be stuck for the foreseeable future until the I9 drops in price.
I imagine you are looking to go for a powerful I7?
My main rig rocks a I7 2600k. I really don’t know why I got the unlocked version considering I don’t OC. But remember AMD has come a long ways to stay competitive with Intel.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Antipathy17
Let's be forward. I am looking for vindication or a solution to a problem I have been having. I am intel focused by the way. My problem is: the CPU market seems stagnant for the past 7 years or at least thats how I feel. I have been looking to up[grade my cpu since 2014 but the price point seems predatory. I've been trying to find a solid 15-25% upgrade for my CPU at the same price point I got it at when in launched in 2011. Awkwardly, even in 2014, at the same price, I would be getting a product that offered the same performance. As of 2104 the jumps have been minimal until the 8*** series came out from intel.

Two examples of processors at the same price point that offer very minimal performance even though there is 4-5 years between.


i5-7400
cpu.userbenchmark.com...
www.cpubenchmark.net...
i5-6400
cpu.userbenchmark.com...
www.cpubenchmark.net...

Am I expecting too much for wanting 15-25% performance gain after 5 years for the same price?

Now the issue I have is that even if I wanted to upgrade to the 8*** series, I need a new MOBO and ram to go along with it so the price went up $200 alone just from those parts.

: / anyway just shooting the ****

Why are you still Intel ? (although the new "mesh" tech is on the way. Interesting)
I went AMD when Intel released their P2s way back in the day...
Never looked back. Something in a CPU manufacturer that not only allows overclocking , but designs processors for that purpose.
Can anyone say "Black Box" ?
Ryzen all the way...

edit on 4/30/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/30/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Intel does have “K” versions of processor but after you OC say goodbye to your warranty.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Gothmog

Intel does have “K” versions of processor but after you OC say goodbye to your warranty.

Yeah , you can get an extra 100-200mhz out of em....



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Gothmog

Intel does have “K” versions of processor but after you OC say goodbye to your warranty.

Yeah , you can get an extra 100-200mhz out of em....
AMDs overclock themselves.....
Turbo-Boost , etc....all without user intervention.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

That’s why I don’t OC my intels. I don’t really see a reason to do so. I am happy with my hyper threaded quad core 3.4 with a boost to 3.6 (I think).
I would like to play around on a new Ryzen though
I have an older 6 core FX that I mess with at times. I OC’ed that mofo to 4.4 one times and just about fried it. It was fun though



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Meh, intel fanboy.

AMD are supporting this current socket for a while yet, whereas Intel change it almost every bloody time. And the performance of AMD is now on par if not sometimes better than Intel.

Do yourself a favor....stop being an Intel fanboy.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Intel has started to lose the war with AMD.

Chip makers have hit a bottleneck and are trying to get past it. They have found the limit using silicon and need to start thinking outside the box.
edit on 30-4-2018 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Yeah.. I'd say the only interesting thing in the market has been AMD finally offering truly competitive products. Probably one of the best things to happen as well.

Since the 2600k from Intel, its been a bit of a stall. I think they are struggling a bit with getting beyond 14nm. The roadmap is pretty awry at this point.

All that said, I think we will see it again with future architectures and processes. It may be pure optimism, but I'm pretty excited to see what happens in the next decade, or even five years.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
nevermid
edit on 30-4-2018 by Disenchanted1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
All the CPU chips made by Intel are all the same architecture (Xeon's, i3's, i5's, i7's, i9's). Depending on how many cores work fully, the maximum clock speed, how much cache memory works, maximum working temperature, all help to decide the fate of that chip die.

To maximize profts and to match supply to demand, each CPU version gets priced accordingly into a hockey stick sales curve. You want a 3.6Ghz 40 core dual-socket Xeon CPU - that $1900. Want the same version at only 2.2GHz, that's $800 and so on.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17


originally posted by: Antipathy17

Am I expecting too much for wanting 15-25% performance gain after 5 years for the same price?


So, 2 questions:
1. What CPU are you upgrading from?
2. What Price point?

Additionally, in the past year the performance of CPU's have increased substantially due to the release of RYZEN and Intel caught with no direct mainstream competitor. (mostly due to increased core counts at the same price range)

In other words, any CPU released before RYZEN are pretty much stagnated in terms of performance.This goes for any 2k to 7k series from intel.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Miniturization is near its limit with traditional CPUs. If the channels are too narrow then electricity can't flow through them.

Moore's law has died until a new processing paradigm becomes mainstream, quantum?



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   
i work with computers in my line of work and im positively unimpressed with technology in general for the last yay many years, CPUs included.


Let me give you all a little history lesson in case you may have forgotten where we came from.

In around the year 2000 I took possession of my mothers old Packard Bell desktop....a purdy 75mhz machine with maybe 64 megs of RAM. IT was broke...my mom bought a new machine and i took her old one to learn how to work on computer hardware while in college just as a part time hobby.

While at school, connected to the college network, i used that computer to download all the goodies that the students were sharing on the network. It was back in the good ol napster days when copyrighted material flowed like wine.

The only problem with that machine was it couldnt play video at DVD resolution fullscreen. It only had 2 megabytes of video ram soldiered to the mother board. I knew some geeky guys who hooked me up with a couple more video ram chips for a total of 4MB video RAM on the mother board. After this i was able to play fullscreen color DVD quality vids....at an almost watchable framerate.

With that machine i was able to buy a CD burner, at that time around 100 bucks, and was able to download and archive tons of great material from the college network. Tons of movies, cd's, programs, etc....and that machine was just powerful enough to watch videos and burn cd's. No one i knew was burning CD's at the time.....no one i knew even owned a cd burner (non geeky types).

Okay, so fast forward a few months.....a family member gave me an older Packard Bell 333mhz machine that sported 128 megs of RAM. I was in hog heaven.

Now let me tell you about this 333mhz machine. It could do it all. I skyped with it....i watched full screen DVD quality movies....i ran SNAGIT so i could do screen caps, i ran many browser instances....i ran programs. Honestly i dont remember there being anything that computer could not do. I also owned a 266mhz pentium 2 that i used mostly as storage but also ran DVD shrink on it to rip my DVDS down to smaller files to make them more manageable. The computer did it all.


So here's my question. If back in 1999 i was using already OLD equipment to do pretty much EVERYTHING im doing now whats the deal with computers now that can barely run the SAME programs that i ran easily back then and didnt constantly ask for or require updates every damn time i turned the thing on?


Honestly, i think we've been had. I think theres some kind of complicity between hardware, software and internet companies that have colluded to force people to upgrade for no good reason. Shoot, i even played Quake 2 on that old Packard Bell.....

not impressed...nope....not at all.....



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: hombero

Its all speculation, obviously, but I feel quantum is quite a ways off from the mass market.

I expect something involving gallium, but there have been talks about everything from germanium to diselenides (might be remembering that wrong) to nanotubes.

Biggest concern I have with any of it is cost. We shall see..



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

The CPU market have not been stagnant; there is more to it than speed.
Improvements is generally measured by comparing wattage-to-performance ratios


i7-7400 is around 10% faster than the i5-3470 that has an 18% higher thermal dissipation which translates to being roughly 15% less power efficient.


If a cpu does 110% of the work at 85% of the power consumption of your current it has a 29% improved ratio. I know you want the improvement on performance alone, but that is not how it works anymore.

However, there is one thing that you forget: the graphics side of the chip - and the HD630 of the kaby Lake is a stunning 365% faster then the HD2500 of the Ivy Bridge!

That is some real world performance difference!



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tribal

While there is definitely some weight to the argument for pushing hardware sales with software, or anything similar, the issue you are running into isn't really so straightforward.

Compatibility between software and hardware, outside of any possible conspiracy, is a very real issue in everything from performance to stability. Or, even being able to run specific software in the first place.

This very aspect is one of Apple's biggest selling points. Less customization, among other things, but typically more predictable performance across machines.



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17



files.abovetopsecret.com...

This should be helpful if you are interested in a apples to apples comparison.
NOTE: non-updated chart, No 8k, i9 nor Threadripper CPUs.
edit on 4/30/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join