Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Mainstream CPU gains close to nil for last 3 years?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 184 à CPUs
December 27, 2011 7:47:34 PM

Well your CPU is towards the end... :ange: 
December 27, 2011 7:48:37 PM

No, My Cpu at 2.66 is towards the end, but at 3.8 it's probably in the middle, and the middle is 5000, vs 5800 for the best mainstream CPU. Doesn't seem like Moores law to me.
Related resources
a c 79 à CPUs
December 27, 2011 8:06:05 PM

honestly, the demand for faster cpu's isnt there, except for in the high end server/cloud business. Any mid range quad core cpu from the past few years can do anthing most people want at a good speed. Main areas for improvement today include hard drive speed, network/internet bandwidth, coding to take advantage of gpu's and improvements in efficiency. We can also see OpenCL and other coding becoming more popular which takes advantage of GPU's and makes CPU performance even less dominant to overall system speed. It's just not all about the CPU anymore.
a c 123 à CPUs
December 27, 2011 8:18:45 PM

Moore's law states the number of transistors will double every 2 years not the performance. It was an intel exec that said cpus performance will double every 18 months but I don't believe any of this stuff.

Synthetics are pretty useless imo. Look at real world apps and you will see a much better representation of actual performance. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-... Also lga1336 is in the enthusiast tier with lga2011. Lga1156 and 1155 are mainstream. Unless you meant consumer vs servers.

I think amuffin meant the cpu is towards the top. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc... Although this is gaming hierarchy it is one of the top cpus nonetheless.
December 27, 2011 8:25:14 PM

Good posts, but I definitely feel like there are dramatically less gains. I spent $1000 on my rig over two years ago, which includes a 5850. It looks like a 2600k system would be a similar price, but the performance gains when everything is said and done would be about 30-40%.

So it looks like my CPU is "at the top", but this shouldn't be true after 3 years,

I understand Moore's law and transisters, but this has meant performance in most of the last 20 years. In my last computer upgrade cycles, I would get over double the improvement in performance every 2 years for the same money.

This no longer appears to be true. I'm not sure how iam2thecrowe's points about OpenCL will help me photoedit or run games faster right now.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 8:44:23 PM

As CPU's become more efficient per clock cycle, it is becoming harder to improve their efficiency(IPC). Core 2 was such a big jump from the P4, because they changed the entire arch and Netburst wasn't very efficient.

Intel has stuck with their Core 2 arch with modifications and shrinks to increase transistor switching speed and some IPC.

We have hit a wall on Thermal Design Power(TDP), which doesn't allow for easy increases in speed at the cost of power; that along with die size prevents increases in performance easily. Silicon has nearly reached its limit in its current form for a CPU. GPU easily scales with added cores, so they can add performance easily with each shrink.

I think we'll keep seeing increases in efficiency instead of speed with each shrink. Efficiency and integration are going to be the next step for a CPU.
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:01:22 PM

your cpu also uses a lot more power than current sandy bridge cpus. But an I7-2600k can OC to 4.4ghz and total trounce your 920.

looking at oc vs stock is kinda stupid.
December 27, 2011 9:10:14 PM

esrever said:
your cpu also uses a lot more power than current sandy bridge cpus. But an I7-2600k can OC to 4.4ghz and total trounce your 920.

looking at oc vs stock is kinda stupid.


trounce?

http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?1327-bigadv-fo...

OC to OC, it looks like a 30% gain, just like I said, not much change in 2 years
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:13:46 PM

30% gain is only from the OC. sandy bridge is more powerful per clock compared to bloomfield.

And did you not even look at the power draw?
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:14:13 PM

You must compare things at stock or OCed. Bad argument to compare one against the other. And it is true that there has not been the huge speed gains in the past 3 years but i5 and 17 cpu have come a long way in efficiency and OCing ability.
-Bruce
December 27, 2011 9:21:22 PM

like I said, when everything is said and done (OC to OC), there is about a 30% improvement in the mid range i7's (OC 2600k to OC 920)

It's nice to be more efficient, but alot of people put this alot lower priority than performance, and for OCing, 920 went from 2.66 to 4 ghz, which processors can OC better than this?

If you want to show me otherwise, please show a OC to OC chart that shows that a mid range i7 does alot better than the 920 (more than 30%)
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:27:20 PM

4.8 on the 2600k wouldn't be that uncommon as a 4 ghz 920.

the current i7s are built for 95 watt, if intel just give it the 120 watt ceiling Im sure it will OC better. anyways, the 920 wasn't a midrange with it was released, why compare it to a midrange today?
December 27, 2011 9:30:35 PM

I got my CPU with a 5850, 920 for $1000 2 years ago, and it looks like a good 2600k system costs only a little more, so thats my comparison.
December 27, 2011 9:33:39 PM

also isn't the 2600k a bit higher than mid range (ie, the i5 is midrangE)?
a c 184 à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:52:24 PM

High end is now considered to be sandybridge-e

Best solution

a b à CPUs
December 27, 2011 9:58:30 PM
Share

esrever said:
4.8 on the 2600k wouldn't be that uncommon as a 4 ghz 920.

the current i7s are built for 95 watt, if intel just give it the 120 watt ceiling Im sure it will OC better. anyways, the 920 wasn't a midrange with it was released, why compare it to a midrange today?

4ghz D0 920 is just as common if not more common than 4.8ghz 2600k.

The TDP ceiling isn't really a ceiling. That is just a number for their TDP at stock clocks. Many overclocking boards have the hardware to support much higher TDP's.
Quote:
also isn't the 2600k a bit higher than mid range (ie, the i5 is midrangE)?

The 1155 socket CPU's are considered midrange, because their platform has less features than the high end.

2011 would be considered the high end of today, and that has almost double the performance of a 920 with one of those 6 cores.
a c 123 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 12:05:03 AM

k1114 said:
Also lga1336 is in the enthusiast tier with lga2011. Lga1156 and 1155 are mainstream.

2600k replaces the 870. There will be cheaper mobos as well as cheaper 4c/8t 2011 cpus that will be the true successors to the 920/930. All that was released now was the higher end 6 cores. But from generation to generations is usually about 10-20% performance and is the case here from nehalem to SBE. So it isn't really worth the upgrade.
January 6, 2012 11:35:41 PM

Best answer selected by marmotcpu.
!