Noob question about Intel CPU's

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Citizen Cook

Commendable
Feb 3, 2017
25
0
1,530
I just brought myself a new grpahics card and was pleasantly surprised to learn that my 3 year old CPU is totally fine for gaming still. On the other hand, new and far more powerful GPU's are releasing at a shockingly faster rate from Nvidia.

Why is CPU desktop tech so slow to advance? Power efficiency seems to be improving, but not the number of cores and the other kind of stuff that pushes performance...
 
Solution
synphul
Another consideration is the gpu's role which is to push pixels in greater numbers. People wanted higher resolutions, 2k, 4k etc. The cpu load changes very little while gpu demands increase significantly. Looking at nvidia, it wasn't so long ago that the gtx 970 was a solid 1080p gaming card. It wasn't the best, the 980 was capable of handling more eye candy at 1080p so the 970 hadn't yet pushed the limits of 1080p.

If the 970 and 980 were working decently at 1080p and were near the top of the heap for gpu performance, what were users going to use to run their 1440p monitors? What about 4k? If gpu performance had slowed or stagnated everyone would be stuck using 1080p or struggling at 20-30fps at 4k. Enter the higher end gpu's like...
Sort by date Sort by votes
KyleADunn

KyleADunn

Honorable
Jul 8, 2014
747
0
11,660


AMD, being intel's largest competitor, hadn't really brought too much to the table to contest with before Ryzen. Intel wasn't pushed to advance leaps and bounds ahead. Hopefully Ryzen creates a new power struggle.

I'm going to get out of here before the fanboys of both sides arrive and eat me alive. Good luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,973
4,256
139,340
When it comes to desktop PCs, they are a shrinking minority.

The consumer grade Intel processors we are familiar with share a developmental cycle with mobile CPUs. Meaning that power and efficiency are the true goals. Additionally this is used to perfect process nodes before tackling larger wafers/silicon.

Gamers tend not to notice, but the biggest improvements have been made in the onboard GPU, which is the majority of the silicon in the consumer line-up. The HD iGPUs are more than competitive with recent low-end GPUs. Thus the complete lack of them from AMD and Nvidia this generation. Rx460 and GTX1050 are now the low end.

Software development is also a key driver. Most consumers don't need large core counts or a lot of processing speed. A nearly ten year old laptop is still useful for most consumer tasks like web browsing, e-mail, taxes, and what have you.

The lack of competition from AMD certainly didn't help, but I don't think Intel would have moved faster anyway. It isn't until recently that gamers needed high core count or that your average pro-sumer was going to get into a lot of content development.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Isokolon

Isokolon

Judicious
Jul 24, 2016
6,369
112
34,390
One thing you gotta keep in mind is that the CPU architecture is slowly pushing it's physical boundaries.
Silithium has it's limits and we're currently reaching those limits.
Switching to 10nm fet is a major pain for Intel to get stable that's why their tick-tock cycle was abandoned.
We're experiencing the ceiling of single core performance and it doesn't look like anyone got a solution to it so far (if there is any)

The only thing I blame on missing competition is that i7s are still only quadcores and i3s are still dual cores.
But Intel is slowly starting to adapt to AMDs pressure. I don't think it's coincidental that the newest Pentiums are hyperthreaded and were released shortly before the official launch date for AMDs Ryzen line.
And I'm hoping that the next Intel i5s will be hyperthreaded quadcores with the next i7 being at least a hexacore CPU.
The fact that we see such a slow progression in the number of cores on desktops and in a result a slow progression in programming for multiple cores is a direct result of having no competition for years. But it seems that finally is about to change.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
why_wolf

why_wolf

Splendid
Aug 28, 2015
3,532
26
26,940
because the GPU functions as a complete compute set with motherboard, GPU chip and RAM all in one. Having total control over the package means its a lot easier to increase performance when you don't have to wait or deal with anything other parties in the process.

CPUs on the other hand have to work with a wide range of hardware that Intel and AMD have no real control over other than the slow standards procedure.

The next major upgrade on the CPU front will likely be when there is a major overhaul over RAM which Intel is trying to get to with their Optane stuff and combine the raw speed of volatile RAM with the long term storage of the HDD/SSD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
drkatz42

drkatz42

Honorable
Apr 5, 2014
1,882
2
12,460
I 100% agree with Kyle's response(after all, he is a MASTER!) Stagnation on the part of AMD allowed Intel to coast and only need to make small incremental improvements with each generation of the Core CPU. Everyone loves an underdog and even though Ryzen hasn't actually overcome Intel's performance lead(significantly reduced it though), the release of Ryzen has energized many people which is great for everyone.(both Intel and AMD fans) Some of us are old enough to remember what the AMD Athlon 1800+ CPU did to energize gaming and Ryzen is doing the same now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,973
4,256
139,340
6-core i7s for the 300 series of boards is on the roadmap. There is still the possibility that it will use the same LGA1151 socket, and it also uses the same process node (Though Intel will probably have to change up the series numbers since AMD co-opted theirs)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

junkeymonkey

Polypheme
BANNED
Nov 11, 2013
17,389
4
66,960
intels tic , tock roadmap and why there still older platform from intel still doing a fine job today . with intel you just about don't nedd to ''upgrade unless you build just fails and you got to

true todays CPU's from intell have more processing power but its not like a leap and bounds worth or worth the overall cost of a new comprehendible system say a z87 with a 4670 to a skylake i5 6600

[I use non k CPU's so CPU overclocking don't affect the graphics scores , but gpu overvclocking is still evolved ]

i5 4690 [non k] and gtx 1080

http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.124512650.1885901689.1468022640#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1803/1085/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-4690 Processor&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

i5 6600 [non k ] gtx 1080

http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.124512650.1885901689.1468022640#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2017/1085/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600 Processor&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080

i5 3570 non k with gtx 1080

http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.124512650.1885901689.1468022640#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1553/1085/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-3570&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
so is that score difference worth a new board 200$ new cpu 200$ the ddr4 memory $$$?? and anything else you may need on top of that ??

I don't think so [more opinion]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
synphul

synphul

Champion
Mar 11, 2011
9,477
7
54,965
Another consideration is the gpu's role which is to push pixels in greater numbers. People wanted higher resolutions, 2k, 4k etc. The cpu load changes very little while gpu demands increase significantly. Looking at nvidia, it wasn't so long ago that the gtx 970 was a solid 1080p gaming card. It wasn't the best, the 980 was capable of handling more eye candy at 1080p so the 970 hadn't yet pushed the limits of 1080p.

If the 970 and 980 were working decently at 1080p and were near the top of the heap for gpu performance, what were users going to use to run their 1440p monitors? What about 4k? If gpu performance had slowed or stagnated everyone would be stuck using 1080p or struggling at 20-30fps at 4k. Enter the higher end gpu's like the 1070 and 1080 which are much more capable. The 960's replacement 1060 now performs similarly to a 970/980 used to and is a good 1080p card. Middle of the road gpu for middle of the road resolution, 1080p isn't king of the hill anymore. Gamers would be in a poor position if top end gpu's were peaking at middle of the road resolutions.

That could explain some of the leaps and bounds with gpus. The more noticeable push forward aside from vr isn't the game complexity itself but the shading, shadows, detail and screen resolution and those fall on the gpu. Those going the vr route will want better performing parts but so far vr is more gpu dependent than cpu dependent. Vr games are a bit different in how they're designed given the 3d environment but companies like occulus suggest a min cpu of a locked i5 4590 while min specs for gpu are around the gtx 970/980 level. Overall gpu min suggested requirements are higher for vr titles than they would be for most other 2d pc titles.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
C

Citizen Cook

Commendable
Feb 3, 2017
25
0
1,530
Thanks for your answers, guys.
I'm enjoying reading them.

I have a i5 4670K but I haven't overclocked it, it just has a standard fan. Is it worth me overclocking it for gaming? I haven't seen the need. I'm playing the latest games in 4k on ultra settings.
Perhaps I would notice some kind of boost if I did overclock though. I'm new to PC gaming and fear damaging the system though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Colif

Colif

Win 11 Master
Moderator
Jun 12, 2015
65,481
6,526
168,090
5 ghz was speed limit 10 years ago when Intel stopped trying to go max speed on 1 core and went multi core. Nothing has changed, just the number of cores. Unless a radical form of cooling comes along, its going to a barrier to everyone not using nitrogen set ups.

You, like myself, would need a better cooler before overclocking the CPU :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom