Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How many years do you think the i series is considered to be slow?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Years until intel 2nd gen CPU is considered old.

Total: 23 votes (4 blank votes)

  • 1 year
  • 10 %
  • 2 years
  • 10 %
  • 3 years
  • 15 %
  • 4 years
  • 20 %
  • 5 years
  • 45 %
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 27, 2011 1:07:44 AM

How many do you think the intel 2nd gen sandy bridge cpu's are going to be considered old/slow? Post your thoughts below and vote!
December 27, 2011 1:25:17 AM

Given Moore's Law and the doubling of computing power every 18 months, by 3 years, it would be only 1/4 as fast making the i series of processors quite slow.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 1:32:53 AM

Computing power hasn't really been doubling every 18 months though. SNB-E is certainly not 4x faster than Bloomfield, and that's a 3 year gap. Heck - I'd say Bloomfield (i7-920/930/940/950/960/965) is still pretty fast by most people's standards, and it was released 3 years ago. Honestly, I'd guess closer to 5 years, if not longer.
Related resources
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
December 27, 2011 1:37:31 AM

"Slow" is relative and varies from person to person. My Q9450 is still chugging along since I first bought it back in Summer/Fall 2008. I'll wait for Haswell to come out before I upgrade.

Moore's Law is not specifically about the doubling of computing power every 18 months. Actually he stated every two years, it was David House (Intel executive) who said "every 18 months".

Moore's Law states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. That's a little different than the performance doubling every two years. Yes, generally speaking, the more transistors, the more processing power. But the two are not directly correlated. Doubling the number of transistors, does not necessarily mean doubling the processing power.

I too will say 5 years.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 2:05:36 AM

I still use my Athlon 64 X2.

I too will say 5 years (+)
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 2:10:23 AM

amdfangirl said:
I too will say 5 years (+)


I agree as well that it will be 5 years. There still plenty of Core 2 based cpu's that many people feel that it's fast enough and SB is certainly faster than core 2's.
December 27, 2011 2:49:25 AM

Well, I guess it also depends on your needs. If you do office work (word processing, basic spreadsheets, etc.) or image manipulation, then even a very dated first generation Pentium 4 at 2 GHz is good enough and still goes strong. For video processing, game design, and programming, that starts becoming a different subject as 3 years is more like it. If it's 2 years instead of 18 months as I've known for years, that's only about 35% as powerful, fairly slow in my opinion.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 3:20:34 AM

With the way thing are moving now... 22nm,14nm,10nm fabs are scheduled! I would say a i7 2600k would last ya around 2.5 years!
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 4:29:04 AM

ulillillia said:
Well, I guess it also depends on your needs. If you do office work (word processing, basic spreadsheets, etc.) or image manipulation, then even a very dated first generation Pentium 4 at 2 GHz is good enough and still goes strong. For video processing, game design, and programming, that starts becoming a different subject as 3 years is more like it. If it's 2 years instead of 18 months as I've known for years, that's only about 35% as powerful, fairly slow in my opinion.

You're still making the mistake of confusing transistor count with speed though. Moore's law simply says that the transistor count doubles every two years. Double the transistor count is not the same thing as double the performance.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 4:34:06 AM

People are still asking for advice on putting an AGP 4670 in their Northwood P4 with a 865 mobo so I can definitely see i5-2500k and i7-2600k in gaming rig 5 years later.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 5:28:31 AM

And the occasional Pentium 3 ;) .
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 27, 2011 5:36:02 AM

I marked "One year".

Consider. After about 6 months, your shiny new WhizzBang 3000 starts feeling a little slow, and after a year really slow. :) 
December 27, 2011 6:42:16 AM

definitely 5 years, pentium processors are stilll good enough
a c 83 à CPUs
December 27, 2011 7:01:38 AM

I voted 3 years, but it'll probably be longer than that. Many people are still on Core2 processors and similar AMD processors. Phenom II has been around for 3 years, no faster than Core2Quad, and people are still buying it new. Mainstream laptops are still slower than 2008 high end desktop processors, more than 3 years of age. Sandy Bridge won't be top of the line in 3 years, but it probably won't be considered slow either.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 7:18:21 AM

I'd say by the next tick of intels release schedule it would be considered slow. People say the phenom IIs are slow and they are really only 2 years behind the curve.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 11:48:18 AM

those i5 series especially i5-2400 and i5-2500 are quad core and as u realize today most games will run great for dual core arch , because not alot of poor ppl like me jumped to quad arch but we wanna and we will , pay attention that if a game is truly quad core arch that means it wont run on dual core arch either at all or run nicely , thats why intel makes they dual core with 4 threads (i3-2100) and there i7 series 4 core but more threads , intel knows that the future is quad core and we gona get stuck in the quad for a while and that also describes why amd is failing no one need 6 or 8 core cpu unless ur specialized firm that wants to do specialized task repeatedly and fast not for regular ppl
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 12:11:16 PM

My Intel Atom 230 is enough for 95% of my daily tasks.

How am I going to justify an upgrade? :p 

I say 5+ years, again.

(Has been known to be wrong, like that time I bit my external hard drive thinking it was chocolate or that time I said that BD couldn't possibly be slower than Thuban).
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 27, 2011 7:27:47 PM

Doesn't the definition of slow to a user truly depend on what you are doing?
December 27, 2011 8:18:28 PM

I'm going to say 5 years before it won't easily run most popular games at a moderate setting with playable frame-rates. (yes I know that that can be as much about graphics as about cpu but we don't want super detailed.) I am still building budget gaming rigs with lightly overclocked phenom II's and they are working nicely for those people. The core I7 cpu's are going to have a life of about 3 years before they aren't popular cpu build choices and about 2 to 3 years after that before people running them are going to be wanting to reasonably justify an upgrade. Its also important to remember that the bleeding edge users feel that they need to upgrade before the typical user feels that their lost performance needs an upgrade.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 117 å Intel
December 27, 2011 10:15:27 PM

amuffin said:
Doesn't the definition of slow to a user truly depend on what you are doing?


Yep. Too bad Haswell was not released back in 2008 when I built my PC. For video encoding that would be a great. Well, gotta wait another 18 months or so...
!