blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I thought I was the only one who saw the article's claim did not meet the article's content.
That said, Moore's Law is coming to a halt with silicon.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel: future CPUs to be slower but more efficient
- Thread starter Renekton
- Start date
That said, Moore's Law is coming to a halt with silicon.
It is still evolving, we're just looking at the end of one very long branch.
Optical-electronics using photons rather than electrons are finally showing signs of being viable outside a lab, with at least 3 companies claiming to be able to create optronic chips on silicon using existing lithographic processes.
There are also potential materials innovations that can deal with the heat issue.
Just because an industry giant says something is happening doesn't mean it is, either. Intel has been completely incapable of penetrating the mobile market, and has a business that is built around a specific production & design process.
Changing that isn't easy: it's expensive, risky and has to happen in an environment where financial reporting & board action is driven by quarter, not one given to changes in direction that can take a decade or more.
Tl:dr it isn't depressing, and will likely force innovation in other areas.
People are checking out Graphene but it's expensive to make a chip and it might be difficult to get it to do logic too,
If we can get everything to work out it can be massively massively faster than silicon. but I wouldn't expect to see products any time soon.
Your bitter is still awful. Thats not bitter at all. Its pleasant. All wrong.
The main problem right now is, despite all the knowledge we have on the (brain) matter... we actually really have no complete idea of how a brain works... So... We dont know how to make or simulate an artificial one... No matter how much processing power we have....
So on the bright side, even if processing power stagnates for a bit... Its not whats hindering ai right now.
I dont understand those posts. Are You not playing demanding games on Your PC, because 2500k is already showing its age in games.
8 threads are a minimum for high performance gaming right now. I could understand 2600k@4.6, but 2500k is getting really old.
---
Yep.
It sounds like some are misinterpreting Intel's statement as an indication that computer speed will not improve. My interpretation is that conventional processor technology has reached its peak. So Intel has to go back to the drawing board to explore fundamentally new technologies that will take a while to catch up to the old ones, but will eventually surpass them. Moore is just taking a break until they mature.
Sadly, that's how I see it. As long as Intel is on top of AMD, Moore's law won't advance without incentives.
At least some of us interpret it this way:
Computing power will still improve, but this may require stacking more chips to take advantage of their better power efficiency, rather counting on forever increasing IPC+clock per core.
You have encountered a Wild Amdahl.
JamesJoyce1882
Member
Hard to say whether your improved gaming performance is due to CPU or something else. At the same time, you changed your motherboard, RAM and possibly did a new system install. Without having a clear A/B comparison and benchmarks, your perceived improvement could thus be due to other factors or just be pure placebo effect.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
No. Intel puts an enormous amount of time, money, and effort into R&D, far more than AMD could ever hope to imagine.
As has already been stated, we're already approaching the physical limitations of silicon chips. There's a bit more room to go, but the closer we get the harder it gets to progress any further. It's going to be significantly harder and more expensive to eek out any more appreciable gains, so Intel is redirecting their efforts towards efficiency as they spent more of their time and money on new technologies rather than wringing silicon dry. They are innovating, just in areas that are going to take longer to payoff, but that's necessary in the long-run.
I don't think performance will stall technically speaking, but the focus clearly is on power efficiency. In pure gaming workloads modern CPUs already do well, and DX12 will only improve that so no worries.
Look up various CPU benches in AAA games and you'll see what he is talking about.
I have some exposure to the industry, and suffice it to say, CMOS (on silicon) is the elephant no one can dislodge.
To give an analogy: there was speculation that the industry was going to move onto X-Ray lithography over a decade ago because foundries were hitting the limits of UV. And they're still on UV, because the cost of retooling (and the special materials involved) is just too high.
Moving away from CMOS would take so much upfront capital that no one would be willing to take the risk.
Backfoggen
Banned
2500k is gonna last till the year 2500.
JamesJoyce1882
Member
No, I don't. Have a look here (sorry for the German website, but they do run some of the most comprehensive CPU tests, and the bar graphs are understandable without German
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-08/...0x-haswell-e-test/5/#abschnitt_spiele_full_hd
There is very little difference between CPU influence on FPS at high resolutions since the 2500K. And even at low, purely CPU constrained resolutions, the difference is only 25%.
If one wants to make an argument about new CPUs improving gaming performance (especially considering most of these older i5/i7s run at 4 GHz+), one would have to look at stuff like microstutters. Because clearly, on average, the influence of the CPU on FPS is very low since the 2500k@4GHz came around.
Burgess_101
Member
Had it happen to me recently managed to pick up a decent Gigabyte UD7 for my 2700k got it for a good price too off ebay. Give it another year and you'll be fucked though. At least for good motherboards.
DonMigs85
Member
I currently have a GTX 960 paired with an ancient Core 2 Quad Q9550. If I upgraded to at least a Core i5-4590 or 6500, I don't think I would ever be CPU-limited again in the vast majority of games right? I only game at 1080p.
DOT DASH DOT
Member
Very interesting, in a way it'll be nice to not feel upgrade pressure, but on the other hand it's nice to upgrade! 
. What games out there currently saturate all 8 threads of an i7?
. What games out there currently saturate all 8 threads of an i7?The CPU does matter a lot at 1080p. The 2500K runs at 3.2ghz stock if memory serves me right.
The Division is no exception, feel free to educate yourself.
The 2500K can easily be left in its wake by 6 cores CPU. The upgrade is warranted, even if you can OC the Sandy chip to 4+ghz.
KainXVIII
Member
Nice joke, man =)
DonMigs85
Member
Even today you can still buy new LGA775 motherboards, but they're usually cheap combo types that support both DDR2 and DDR3.
OnionPowder
Member
Personal gripe, I hate that these things never test my CPU. The 5820K. I can see how big of a difference it is from similar CPUs though from my previous FX-8350
JamesJoyce1882
Member
The CPU does matter a lot at 1080p. The 2500K runs at 3.2ghz stock if memory serves me right.
The Division is no exception, feel free to educate yourself.
The 2500K can easily be left in its wake by 6 cores CPU. The upgrade is warranted, even if you can OC the Sandy chip to 4+ghz.
These are just some of the very few examples where more than 4 cores matter, and hyperthreading is just effective. See how high up the ancient 2600K is. Might become more important in the future, given that the consoles have more than 4 cores.
Furthermore, the whole point of the K line of CPUs is a free multiplier and hence effortless overclocking.
I feel I don't particularly need more education on the subject, thank you, but I'm always open to new evidence and will change my mind accordingly.
Edit: this is from the POV of a 60 FPS gamer. I can see that things might look differently for people on 120+ Hz screens.
OnionPowder
Member
His point was about how aged a 2500K was. He EDIT: (might have been somebody else who directly said this, but he was still showing the 2500K) even said you could pass with a 2600K nowadays.
It should be a substantial upgrade. The 5820K should do better than the 8 threads I7s.
We are at a point where >4 threads brings very tangible improvements. The 2500K is not "outated" but it is falling behind in many games, but it remains true that overclocking it is rather easy.
You can educate yourself by doing more research regarding CPU usage in modern games, you will see that the games I've quoted are not the exception. My point was merely that the 2500k is falling behind and that 4 threads is starting to become limiting. Just look at the lower clocked CPUs doing better partly because of their core count.
Fair point regarding overclocking, as I've noted in my previous post but that applies equally to 6+ cores CPUs. The gap only widens then.
Onionpowder is absolutely correct, 6 cores such as his CPU will definitely improve performance on a wide number of AAA games.
The point surely is that gamers are irrelevant comoared to the mass market. Current chips are just fine the GPU that needs to push on.
In the general home use scenario for Facebook/chrome/office apps, current CPU performance is fine, and SSDs helo in making the comouter generally more responsive. Ultrabooks have become more common and even normal fat laptops are using ultrabook CPUs so that they can either offer longer battery life, or the budget concious manufacturer can put a smaller battery in for the same life.
They've been treading water for a while now.
In the general home use scenario for Facebook/chrome/office apps, current CPU performance is fine, and SSDs helo in making the comouter generally more responsive. Ultrabooks have become more common and even normal fat laptops are using ultrabook CPUs so that they can either offer longer battery life, or the budget concious manufacturer can put a smaller battery in for the same life.
They've been treading water for a while now.
Kudo
Member
I'd assume Skylakes or Haswell-E's, afaik Skylake has better single core performance but Haswell-E has 6 cores compared to Skylakes being 4.
I don't think you have any reason to upgrade from 3570k though.
Well people ARE being bottlenecked by their 2500k if they rock high end GPUs already and that'll only get worse over time, so I'm guessing the same goes for a 3570k.
Gustafson I choose you
Kudo
Member
True enough, spoke out of the line there. 3570k should still be good for 1080p gaming and maybe more if overclocked.
If you have high end GPU and plan to play 4k/60+fps it's not a bad idea to have high end CPU too, being bottlenecked by CPU is worst as that's the hardest part to change.
I know it's not a placebo as I was in the middle of testing Rise of the Tomb Raider on the PC when I switched over. My Windows 10 install on the 3570k was only a few months old anyways.
The village sequence always maxed out all four cores on the older CPU and the frame-rate dropped like a stone. Now, it's just GPU limited but still runs much better.
JamesJoyce1882
Member
You have it the wrong way, the higher the resolution, the less influence the CPU has. With modern GPUs, one can run into scenarios where the game runs CPU limited at 1080p. However at 4K, any graphically intense game will be GPU limited for a long time to come.
DOT DASH DOT
Member
When are the new desktop processors out?
I've got a 3770k 4.5ghz, and I 'try' to game at 4K 60hz, I don't really want to upgrade as it would mean a new Mobo etc, is that chip realistically gonna keep me ok for a good while?
I've got a 3770k 4.5ghz, and I 'try' to game at 4K 60hz, I don't really want to upgrade as it would mean a new Mobo etc, is that chip realistically gonna keep me ok for a good while?
I think an older i7 would stay relevant for longer as the hyper threading will help a ton
But assuming most consumers would buy an i5 - 4 cores, no hyper threading. Would a recent broadwell/skylake i5 significantly outperform an older 2500/3570?
DonMigs85
Member
Anandtech said that Skylake's IPC is on average 15-20% faster than Sandy Bridge and about 7% faster than Haswell. I think it would be best to wait till Kabylake at least. It'll include a lot of new AVX-512 instructions as well as SHA-1 acceleration which may prove useful one day. Or when games actually start making heavy use of AVX-2, that's another good time to upgrade from Sandy or Ivy Bridge.
Kudo
Member
I'd assume you still need significantly more juice when playing newer games that use multiple cores, if you're getting bottlenecked by CPU at 1080p and want to play 4k with smooth fps?
DonMigs85
Member
Higher resolutions don't really make the CPU work any harder. 4K can cut your framerate to 1/3 or 1/4 what it was at 1080p so it's unlikely you'll ever be CPU-limited.
Well, they've been doing that for desktop for years now. Ever since LGA1366 (and now LGA2011-x), Intel has a desktop version of their "smallest" server chips with 4 up to 8 cores + HT. A fully enabled Broadwell-E will even have 10 cores. You really don't need to get a Xeon to have a higher core count CPU without integrated graphics. Unless you really need 28 cores.