Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

"Next Gen" CPU's

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 18, 2009 6:15:16 PM

Hello All,

Im continuing research for a new CPU/Socket to build my new system around. After reading the review for the revised Phenom II X4, I was wondering about future CPU's and whether or not I can continue using the new motherboard, ram and such and just upgrading the CPU When needed.

Im leaning towards an Intel i7-920. Ive heard that the 1156 socket type is kind of under scrutiny about the longevity of the platform. The Phenom II X4 sounds good too, even though the flagship AMD performs only as well as a high end i5 wich is probably the mid of Intel's whole line up.

So my question is this: has there been any confirmation about the next CPU's from either camp? Are we sure whether or not the new units will fit into existing sockets? Also, I know that the Intel boards and CPU's are a good bit more expensive if you go with the 1366 socket. AMD is a good bit cheaper, but the performance is no where near that of Intel (judging from benchmarks Ive seen on this site). However, do you guys think that the tables will turn with the next gen of CPU's? Will AMD take back the performance crown? Or at least be on par with Intel in the next rendition?

If so wouldnt it be wiser for me to buy the AMD board and such and then just drop a (Hypothetical) Phenom III X6 in when they become available, since the parts are so much cheaper?

Thanks guys!

More about : gen cpu

December 18, 2009 7:20:45 PM

I'm hoping that AMD does release something better than Gulftown, but the Phenom X6 isn't gonna cut it. Also, there's not enough apps out there to take advantage of multi-threading. AMD's problem has always been about efficiency I think. Their processors need a lot power and clock speed to stand up to Intel's. I don't know what others think, but 140W CPUs are preposterous. I know Intel's is 130W, which is high too, but it out preforms AMD 140W CPUs by a mile.

I like the fact that AMD doesn't switch sockets every year like Intel, which makes upgrading easier on your budget, but they come out with 10 CPUs that range from 2.6 to 3.6 Ghz in the Phenom line (I don't know that it's 10, might be more. I just threw out a big number) . You got your Phenom II X2, X3, and X4. Their processors only go up like 200mhz for the next level like the Athlon X4 620 and 630. 200mhz isn't that much of a difference. There was $50 price difference between the PII X4 955 and 965 for only a 200mhz gain. Intel does the same thing. i7 870 cost twice as much as the i7 860, for only a 200mhz gain.

I better see a 50% performance gain from the next gen CPUs in order for me to make the switch. My i7 920 and Q9550 should last me a good 5+ years.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 9:36:23 PM

i7 920 = LGA1366 and the i5 / i7 8** range use LGA1156

both are well featured on the Intel product road map for 2-3 years with 6 / 8 core CPU's coming next.

Ok AMD do use the same socket for longer periods - but this could also be partly why they have yet to catch up with Intel.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 9:51:03 PM

AMDs next offering will amost certainly be on a new platform/architecture/socket.

theyve been using the same architecture for years, and its becoming old. its why intel are so far ahead perfoamnce wise this gen. AMD know this, so they are almost certainly going to go with a new processor architecture for the next round. this mean, in terms of longevity, it can go either way. and i dont think either side has an advantage.

right now, intel=better performance but AMD=better value. its as simple as that IMO.
m
0
l
a c 218 à CPUs
December 18, 2009 9:52:23 PM

I don't see 1156 as having the future that 1366 does in the gamers arena especially with 2,3 and 4 PCI-E slots appearing on enthusiast MoBos.
m
0
l
a c 334 à CPUs
December 18, 2009 10:08:43 PM

The 32nm cpu's from Intel are due out 1q 2010. The will include the 6 core gulftown, the best, if high multithreading is of value to you. It will be on socket 1366.
The 32nm clarkdale cpu's will also launch as dual cores with and without hyperthreading at clock rates from 2.8 to 3.46 on 1156. Turbo boost will make them go up from there.
I would expect them to be the cpu's of choice for value gamers(one good graphics card only)
If you think you need high end multiple cards, then 1366 is the way to go.

It seems illogical to me that there seem to be no 32nm quad cores in the pipeline. I hope that will change because 32nm seems to be the key to higher overclocks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2009 10:34:17 PM

geofelt said:
The 32nm cpu's from Intel are due out 1q 2010. The will include the 6 core gulftown, the best, if high multithreading is of value to you. It will be on socket 1366.
The 32nm clarkdale cpu's will also launch as dual cores with and without hyperthreading at clock rates from 2.8 to 3.46 on 1156. Turbo boost will make them go up from there.
I would expect them to be the cpu's of choice for value gamers(one good graphics card only)
If you think you need high end multiple cards, then 1366 is the way to go.

It seems illogical to me that there seem to be no 32nm quad cores in the pipeline. I hope that will change because 32nm seems to be the key to higher overclocks.

There are definitely 32nm quads in the pipeline, but as far as I can tell, all the ones that will be launched soon will be Xeons.
m
0
l
a c 334 à CPUs
December 18, 2009 11:05:49 PM

There are definitely 32nm quads in the pipeline, but as far as I can tell, all the ones that will be launched soon will be Xeons.

___________________________________________________________

I have seen that too. I think Intel is addressing their percieved exposures:
1) Title of fastest/most capable cpu ---gulftown
2) low power server marketplace ---low power Xeons
3) Low cost cpu's ie: duo's ---clarkdale duo's

For most gamers, I suspect that the clarkdales will be very good if they can be overclocked well. The integrated graphics may be a problem for overclocking.
m
0
l
December 19, 2009 12:20:30 AM

masterasia said:
AMD's problem has always been about efficiency I think.


Ugh, what? AMD may not have the scalable performance going for them right now, but I don't believe their problem has ever been efficiency... They've been doing that right since the Athlon 64.
m
0
l
!