Why are they still focusing on the desktop version? The mobile should be front page, no one's buying desktops anymore
Are people buying laptops? I thought that market was getting squeezed by tablets?
Why are they still focusing on the desktop version? The mobile should be front page, no one's buying desktops anymore
I agree with only a 920 @4.1GHz. I don't even know when I'm going to have to upgrade this build and it's already 3 1/2yrs old.I have an I7 920 Bloomfield clocked to 4.4ghz HT ON, 12gb ddr3 1600mhz Corsair XMS and a Gigabyte Ex 58 extreme.
I cant' see a valid reason to upgrade my build ( I'd like to purchase a 990x) with haswell or Ivy Bridge.
Am I wrong?
I agree with only a 920 @4.1GHz. I don't even know when I'm going to have to upgrade this build and it's already 3 1/2yrs old.
Looks like my Sandy will hold out for years to come when it comes to high-res gaming. If you have a Sandy or Ivy you are good to go.
If I upgrade it's just because I like to fiddle with my PC.
The i7 920 is probably one of the best desktop CPUs ever in terms of longevity. The thing is 5 years old now and I still can't get motivated to upgrade.
I find the impact of the huge L4 cache interesting in the IGP benchmark. The Iris Pro produces nice, flat latency profiles for most of the benchmarks, and I think the cache may play a role in mitigating performance spikes.http://techreport.com/review/24879/intel-core-i7-4770k-and-4950hq-haswell-processors-reviewed/12
4770k slightly beats the 3770k in latency tests. Close to being a wash, but it is slightly better. Power consumption, at least at stock, also seems comparable (maybe X-bit labs just had a crap motherboard... which is common at new launches.)
P.S. Man, those AMD A10 chips are dogs. They completely suck in latency benchmarks. Yuck.
Why are they still focusing on the desktop version? The mobile should be front page, no one's buying desktops anymore
Good thing i guess, want my i5 3570k to last at least 4 years for gaming. Would 2x HD 7850s be enough for 4 more years? 1080p60 is mandatory for me, especially 60fps. Everything else, even MSAA, is icing.
Good thing i guess, want my i5 3570k to last at least 4 years for gaming. Would 2x HD 7850s be enough for 4 more years? 1080p60 is mandatory for me, especially 60fps. Everything else, even MSAA, is icing.
The pink frame is the extra frame gained by adding another GPU.
1) Most on this forum that identify as PC gamers and pay attention to news threads like this do.You're conflating difficulty with desire and willingness. And you're forgetting the fact that:
1) It requires that the person actually built his own PC
2) The person actually bought a decent cooler because the stock cooler (especially for Sandy/Ivy Bridge) is absolutely not going to give you a stable overclock.
It's times like these where you really need to re-examine your understanding of the bubble you don't realize you're in.
The i7 920 is probably one of the best desktop CPUs ever in terms of longevity. The thing is 5 years old now and I still can't get motivated to upgrade.
OC3D did some overclocking in their Youtube review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xrLtjgbga5g#t=1714s
1.20V - 4.6Ghz - H100 with dual SP120's on an open bench - 91C
Are you fucking kidding me
OC3D did some overclocking in their Youtube review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xrLtjgbga5g#t=1714s
1.20V - 4.6Ghz - H100 with dual SP120's on an open bench - 91C
Are you fucking kidding me
I have the intel 980x and nothing touches it. Even 4K video uses a small amount of power. Same with any game. I won't be upgrading for years to come.![]()
I think most PC gamers should just begin to accept that the Enthusiast platform of Intel chips is their future home.
I have $100 that says Ivy-E uses fluxless solder.
That's just not true. Most reviews are showing really high temperatures.He seems like the only reviewer who got a bad chip. Not that his experience isn't going to be the norm, but most reviewers had good chips. Linus at NCIX has his OC guide, and their chip went to 4.6 at 1.2V right off the bat, at decent temps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CHs5_TdpXE
The chip lottery seems much more in place for Haswell
I'm not sure I understand the question.Won't they eventually have to bring 6 or 8 core CPUs as a standard for none Enthusiast platforms?
How does this translate to the E variants? Do the 3930 / 3960 / 3970 cpus scale nicely considering their SB architecture? (taking into account the increased density with more active cores)This is a chip lottery. The same thing with Ivy Bridge. If you think Ivy Bridge and Haswell are any different in terms of temps and OC potential, you are wrong. And if you think Intel, with it's huge lead will make Broadwell any better, in terms of OC/temps, you are wrong. Intel is marketing future chips for tablets and small PCs, in order to lower power usage and as a result battery life.
Intel sees there is better money to be made from that crowd, than the hardcore OC enthusiasts. This is all about silicon lottery, as it was with Ivy Bridge. I doubt we'll ever see another jump such as Sandy Bridge was in terms of overclocking or temperatures.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
How does this translate to the E variants? Do the 3930 / 3960 / 3970 cpus scale nicely considering their SB architecture? (taking into account the increased density with more active cores)
If so, does it make any sense to wait for the IB-E release if you're interested in overclocking?
Excuse the many questions, just want to get my head straight about 2-3 year old hardware outperforming new stuff.
Yeah, most SB-E processors (3820 being the cheapest) clock in the 4.8-5.0 range as long as you have the cooling to deal with it. It's not like Haswell/Ivy with a heatwall though.How does this translate to the E variants? Do the 3930 / 3960 / 3970 cpus scale nicely considering their SB architecture? (taking into account the increased density with more active cores)
If so, does it make any sense to wait for the IB-E release if you're interested in overclocking?
Excuse the many questions, just want to get my head straight about 2-3 year old hardware outperforming new stuff.
The enthusiast platform also had a quad core though.Right now the Enthusiast series has 6 cores on their CPUs. While they keep 4 core CPUs to the standard CPU cycles (Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc.) Won't they have to bring the same specifications they are using now to a larger crowd (i.e. future tick-tock cycles will start with a base 6 cores, rather than the 4 cores we see now). While future xxx-E CPUs will go on to 8 or 12, the mass consumer CPU such as the i5 and i7 will have a mandatory 6 core CPU. Maybe when 6 cores becomes mainstream, we could see potentially better temps and OCing. Or is my speculation off and the 4 core CPU will remain the standard for the foreseeable future?
Yeah, most SB-E processors (3820 being the cheapest) clock in the 4.8-5.0 range as long as you have the cooling to deal with it. It's not like Haswell/Ivy with a heatwall though.
Ivy-E should be a fairly minor upgrade over Sandy-E, the main benefit is native PCI-E 3.0 support. Right now, it's a crapshoot on whether the motherboard will flash to PCI-E 3.0 with SB-E and NVIDIA.
[...]
The enthusiast platform also had a quad core though.
I don't think what you are suggesting is necessarily the case. Not that it isn't, but there's just nothing to say that is the history.
We've had Hex Cores on the enthusiast platform since 1366 with the 980x and the... 950? 970? The non-extreme one. We've had 4 consumer releases since then with no hex processors.
What are you basing this on?
What are you basing this on?Why does Intel refuse to make the 6 core CPUs a standard, especially since it offers better performance, at better temps, and has great OCing potential. Instead we who don't want to spend $500+ on a CPU, or who don't see the justification in 6 cores, or hell just don't care about the E variant are stuck with such crap with what we have with Ivy Bridge and Haswell.
Also to add insult to injury, I will bet my left nut that Broadwell won't change that much either.
But 1155 SB overclocked great too. The issue with heat was the switch from fluxless solder to glued on with TIM. Delidded Ivy's perform great.Sandy Bridge E. 6 cores, great ocing potential and pretty good temps. I would love to have that in the mainstream CPU cycle, versus the Haswell we have now.
Why does Intel refuse to make the 6 core CPUs a standard, especially since it offers better performance, at better temps, and has great OCing potential. Instead we who don't want to spend $500+ on a CPU, or hell just don't care about the E variant are stuck with such crap with what we have with Ivy Bridge and Haswell.
Also to add insult to injury, I will bet my left nut that Broadwell won't change that much either.
Intel is starting to piss me off. I really hope AMD just comes out with some godly CPU, which will cause Intel to finally do something insane as when the Core2Duo and Core2Quad series came out. Man I loved my Q6600, it was the best CPU I've ever had, great OC potential on air, and it was quad core. It worked great up until this past year. That's 5 years of beautiful co-existence.
Exactly. The applications that need that many threads are few and far in between. The folks that want that extra power can pay for it with their enthusiast platform. They then get the benefit of quad channel memory and 40 PCI-E lanes.Not enough demand at all for it to become the norm.The 920 has been around for 4-5 years now and is still decent which just shows how little demand there is for performance now a days. Casual PC users are fine with dual cores. For gamers, game are barely using 4 cores to their potential then you add the fact that new consoles will use weak CPU's which means that games will be developed around that. Only the professional market really needs 6 core and above but it is a small market which means $$$$.
Yeah, it's not worth buying a new chip over.So I have a 2500k right now but the motherboard has some issues. I was planning on going with Haswell but now I think I might just replace the motherboard and stick with the 2500k until maybe Steamroller. Thoughts?
I don't know why you would anticipate an AMD CPU launch until AMD gets itself back to parity with Intel. A 2500k is a fine processor for gaming and is completely fine if you are on a single card setup.
Intel is clearly putting their R&D into mobile so their mainline processors are adopting strengths needed by mobile processors. Lower power draw = more battery life. It would be nice to see another CPU jump comparable to Sandy, but I'm fine keeping my 3770k around for awhile and just upgrading my graphics continually. Plus I like the z77 Mpower board's looks more than the z87, so I good for me.
Coming from a long time AMD fan, that right there is a pipe dream. At least as far as per thread performance goes (which is what you want for gaming).I'm anticipating steamroller in the hopes that it is the chip that gets it back into parity with Intel. Obviously if it was still below my 2500k I wouldn't upgrade.
If it's competitive (Sanby Bridge IPC) and is overclockable that might be all it needs to do.Yea, I know its a pipe dream, but I still hope/wish that Steamroller would be worth upgrading to.
If it's competitive (Sanby Bridge IPC) and is overclockable that might be all it needs to do.
Power consumption stops me more than anything tbh, also, the majority overclocking...hahah.
For what this thread is about, which is a retail release of a desktop processor, I do think a majority of people who care about this also care about overclocking potential.Power consumption stops me more than anything tbh, also, the majority overclocking...hahah.
It seems like Haswell will be sticking around until 2015?
No mention about the 14nm Broadwell tick.
Hope you like your heatwall and dead non-k overclocking..
http://vr-zone.com/articles/long-li...-a-midterm-refresh-is-on-the-cards/33920.html
![]()
![]()