I don't think most people use 980ti SLI at 1080p. No shit you're going to be cpu limited in such a situation.
-
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
I don't think most people use 980ti SLI at 1080p. No shit you're going to be cpu limited in such a situation.
d00d3n
Member
Did you overclock your 3570k?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Xeon-only.
Not surprising. New node shrinks are getting harder and harder to pull off at acceptable cost and and heat. There is a reason why it took so long to move from the 28nm node.
Very soon (4-5 years, just about) Intel and others are going to have to move from silicon, or try to supplement it, with another material. Whether it carbon nanotubes, graphene (or some other 2D material), spintronics, III-V materials or something else. No one in the industry knows.
In any event, the next 5-10 years in the semiconductor industry will be interesting to watch.
Very soon (4-5 years, just about) Intel and others are going to have to move from silicon, or try to supplement it, with another material. Whether it carbon nanotubes, graphene (or some other 2D material), spintronics, III-V materials or something else. No one in the industry knows.
In any event, the next 5-10 years in the semiconductor industry will be interesting to watch.
JamesJoyce1882
Member
Excellent point. I was really surprised at the high CPU impact in those benches, should have looked more closely.
Still, it's impressive to see non-theoretical benchmarks where hyperthreading has such a strong positive effect.
Tarin02543
Member
3770k forever.
In the 90s CPU power was really important as lots of games were software rendered.
My AMD K200mhz was like outdated within a year.
In the 90s CPU power was really important as lots of games were software rendered.
My AMD K200mhz was like outdated within a year.
POWER is not any better than x86.
PdotMichael
Banned
More like they are taking care of the important market segments which need innovations more than ever.
No one cares about gamers who wants a handful fps more.
I am disappointed by this news. As a tech geek, I love to always see the tech envelope being pushed. I noticed a few years how the speeds were stalling and even reversing. I told myself multi-cores (which also fucking stalled at 4 for years), hyperthreading and all that jazz makes up for it, but there is always a part of me that wasn't convinced. CPUs were also not a bottle neck- overall- but I still want CPUs to keep advancing. a few years back, I really thought 6 and 8 core CPUs would be the norm for new PCs and PC upgrades...
Well, at least SSDs will reach price parity with HDDs by the end of this year or so, and GPUs should see a noticeable step forward this year as well...
Well, at least SSDs will reach price parity with HDDs by the end of this year or so, and GPUs should see a noticeable step forward this year as well...
I would have stick with my i7 4770k for long anyway, though slower could just mean about clock speed, you can clock a AMD Phenom to 5ghz but it wouldn't reach the performance of a 3.5ghz i7 for example.I guess they're talking about the mobile scene, they're pretty involved with Microsoft in the Surface serie and with all the other companies who are now copying the Surface, also Microsoft could have asked them a x64 CPU for the rumored Surface Phone, so it's easy to figure out why they're trying to make their CPUs the more efficient and tiny they can. Seems like the future is in the mobile even for real desktop PC
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
i'm not building a new pc for about another year but i plan on getting an i7-6700K or i7-7700K (if Kabylake comes out this year) so it sounds like that will last me a long time if people are getting away with Sandy Bridge CPU's.
I hope this allows AMD to catch up and light a fire under Intel's ass.
Really? a 1TB 7200RPM cost about £40 and 1TB SSD is about £260. I don't see them dropping ~£200 this year.
I hope this allows AMD to catch up and light a fire under Intel's ass.
Really? a 1TB 7200RPM cost about £40 and 1TB SSD is about £260. I don't see them dropping ~£200 this year.
^
Yeah, prices are fucking crazy now, bought my 4790k for less than 300€ at launch, now it costs +/- 360€.
Regarding the info, what does it mean for old soft that don't take advantage of new tech/multi-core etc..., will the lower frequencies results in lower performance? Or things will stay on par or slightly better?
Yeah, prices are fucking crazy now, bought my 4790k for less than 300€ at launch, now it costs +/- 360€.
Regarding the info, what does it mean for old soft that don't take advantage of new tech/multi-core etc..., will the lower frequencies results in lower performance? Or things will stay on par or slightly better?
Of course. Up to 4.4GHz (same speed I'm using on the 5820k now)
Alcoholikaust
Member
velociraptor
Junior Member
I'm still using my 2500k and it feels good, so no complaints for me thus far.
Unless they increase the number of cores at a reasonable price, the regular desktop will be doomed. Welcome our new low energy x86 overlords, the competiton to ARM based Models.
I wonder if AMD can come up with a crazy creative solution or just follow Intel.
Well, small steps, first release AMD Zen.
I wonder if AMD can come up with a crazy creative solution or just follow Intel.
Well, small steps, first release AMD Zen.
Could you take an educated guess on what that cist might be?
Locuza
Member
Zen at least is not crazy in regards of single-thread performance.
2 AGUs, 128-Bit FP-Pipes, one FMA-Output per cycle.
Zen is a small core and should be quite efficient.
I don't think it was mere speculation there was an actual real drive. I attended a lot of x-ray conferences where intel backed researchers presented their work. That was about 6 years ago though so no idea how far it got.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Funny thing about this quote is it's been true for about a decade now...
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Food, CPU's will become more efficient. These things are really fast these days.
I'll take more cores though. 8 or 12 seems to be a good spot.
I'll take more cores though. 8 or 12 seems to be a good spot.
timcsavage
Member
Ditto, which is kind of a shame that there's nothing truly amazing.
JumpCancel
Banned
By cist do you mean the greatest challenges?
The problem with xray lithography compared to UV
1) Creating an X ray source is more difficult and bulky compared to UV. A lot more but still doable.
2) The optics are not simple mirrors or lenses. Xrays like to go through things. The optics are multilayer mirrors, zone plates so on and so forth. The optics and their resolution becomes difficult too and they are heavily being researched at the moment.
3) When you create smaller and smaller structures on silicon defects become more and more of a problem.
If I get time I can post some presentations though they are probably very dated by now.
Teletraan1
Banned
Really wish I would have gone with an i7 over that i5 all those years ago. Then I wouldn't even consider upgrading until there was some huge leap.
qa_engineer
Member
This is really in reference to single core speed, die size, and ops per cycle. Of course they can improve architecture, power consumption an introduce more cores.
Sure your existing CPU may be more than capable of carrying you through the next couple of years, but we're seeing more and more applications and games built with scalable multithreading, and make use of processors with more than four cores and beyond. This will be even more evident as games make use of.DX12 and Vulkan.
The division, which is a dx11 game, is an example of excellent cpu usage and scaling. utilization is amongst the highest I've seen, near 60% in most cases. Additionally the game scales very well beyond 2 and 4 core setups so there is a real world benefit to gaming with a 6,8 and soon to be 10 and 12 core CPU.
Gone are the days where 6 and 8 core cpus being deemed overkill for games.
Sure your existing CPU may be more than capable of carrying you through the next couple of years, but we're seeing more and more applications and games built with scalable multithreading, and make use of processors with more than four cores and beyond. This will be even more evident as games make use of.DX12 and Vulkan.
The division, which is a dx11 game, is an example of excellent cpu usage and scaling. utilization is amongst the highest I've seen, near 60% in most cases. Additionally the game scales very well beyond 2 and 4 core setups so there is a real world benefit to gaming with a 6,8 and soon to be 10 and 12 core CPU.
Gone are the days where 6 and 8 core cpus being deemed overkill for games.
Sure but probably with a much higher power usage. So again there would be no need to buy them.
McHuj
Member
I wish there was a full transcript of his talk. While the speeds of the transistors may reduce, there are many ways to increase absolute performance so I'm not too worried about it. This will probably lead to interesting new CPU micro-architectures, not just more cores.
Until that time comes, we still have a 10nm, 7nm, and maybe a 5nm node of traditional shrinks (although each seems to be getting less gains).
Until that time comes, we still have a 10nm, 7nm, and maybe a 5nm node of traditional shrinks (although each seems to be getting less gains).
Woo-Fu
Banned
It has been over for awhile. That is what has been driving multi-core designs, them hitting their heads against a very real ceiling in terms of individual core speeds.
Not to say that multi-core doesn't have some clear benefits, of course.
A fully acknowledged plateau in consumer-level processors might actually be a good thing, at least in terms of encouraging the development of better software instead of just throwing more hardware at it when your first build doesn't perform so hot.
Not to say that multi-core doesn't have some clear benefits, of course.
A fully acknowledged plateau in consumer-level processors might actually be a good thing, at least in terms of encouraging the development of better software instead of just throwing more hardware at it when your first build doesn't perform so hot.
JumpCancel
Banned
That's AMD in a nutshell.
TechJunk
Member
Agreed, I'm all for the power, but I kinda like the idea that a gaming PC could also be energy efficient. Especially since mine doubles as a media server so it's pretty much running 24/7
Angelus Errare
Banned
Seems I'll be on my 4790K for a good while.
I'm not even complaining.
I'm not even complaining.
CPU performance yields have already been so disappointing in the last 7 years. I recently upgraded from an i7-930 (2008) to an i7-6700K (2015). Here is a table of my single-core performance for each processor, at stock and overclocked.
Geekbench 32-bit single-core score is shown if people are curious; higher is better.
i7-930 @ 2.8 GhZ
1886
i7-930 @ 3.8 GhZ
2403
i7-6700K @ 4.0 GhZ
4297
i7-6700K @ 4.7 GhZ
4981
In principle I get a bit more than twice the performance per core.
It is a good thing that the 6700k is a pretty good overclocker; the situation would be significantly less favorable otherwise because the 930 is such an overclocking beast.
While these gains are significant, they are hardly amazing considering the large time span between when these processors were released.
Geekbench 32-bit single-core score is shown if people are curious; higher is better.
i7-930 @ 2.8 GhZ
1886
i7-930 @ 3.8 GhZ
2403
i7-6700K @ 4.0 GhZ
4297
i7-6700K @ 4.7 GhZ
4981
In principle I get a bit more than twice the performance per core.
It is a good thing that the 6700k is a pretty good overclocker; the situation would be significantly less favorable otherwise because the 930 is such an overclocking beast.
While these gains are significant, they are hardly amazing considering the large time span between when these processors were released.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Fine by me!
In the back of my mind I was dreading having to eventually buy a new CPU that would probably use a new socket, thus requiring a new motherboard.
More money in my pocket.
In the back of my mind I was dreading having to eventually buy a new CPU that would probably use a new socket, thus requiring a new motherboard.
More money in my pocket.
Intel know they can do this, because in the same period where they slump in performance, AMD will catch up, and from these years of R&D they will probably unleash something spectacular. They can take this risk because AMD are so far behind, but i dont see them appearing with no results.
The real problem is that there's literally zero competition on the desktop CPU market. I just checked and an i7 6700k is 375 at my Amazon branch. The 5820k is 409. Yikes!. And it isn't much better with graphic cards, Nvidia can charge as much as they want and they do it,a 970 is 350
At this rate building a decent rig will be prohibitively expensive again as it was in 2000.
At this rate building a decent rig will be prohibitively expensive again as it was in 2000.