Circumnavigate
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 239
I was reading about the Haswell and if I understand correctly the 8 core versions are not targeted towards gamers. Does anyone know when 8 core gaming oriented CPUs will begin popping out
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less
Thanks for the help guys!
Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
Thanks for the help guys!
Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
Thanks for the help guys!
Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
AMD will start selling a lot more 6-8 core CPUs if they can market well.
They seem to be moving away from that. I mean no current plans to update FX. And all the APUs 4 cores max.
there isnt because you dont need an Octocore for gaming...
Considering both next gen consoles have 8 core CPU's, I wouldn't doubt it games capable of supporting 6-8 cores start popping up on PC now since most devs do cross platform development. Naughty Dog already has their engine running on 6 cores. Too bad they don't make PC games.
They seem to be moving away from that. I mean no current plans to update FX. And all the APUs 4 cores max.
What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
I just recently upgraded my AMD x4 620 to the new Haswell i7-4770 and I have yet to find a game that is really hurting my fps. This i7 was only $300 and it has the 8 threads, they look like cores to me when I bring up performance monitor, lol.
I got Crysis II on Steam last night for $6 to test it and it is set for full Ultra quality and my machine is not phased yet. Skyrim with a hardcore ENB setting is hitting the machine harder than Crysis II. I need to try out 3.
I do a lot of movie encoding and that is the reason I went with the i7 instead of the i5, plus it was only $30 more so it looked like a no brainer to me.
Basically, hyperthreading isn't additional cores. It's keeping the cores you have more busy. In threads where there is no decoder bottleneck, there is no performance gain from hyperthreading. In threads where there is a bottleneck, performance increases of 10-30% can be seen.
I wouldn't consider an AMD 8 core to be equal to an Intel 8 core, let alone a very very low-end AMD 8 core CPU.
It will help push development somewhat because they wont have a choice but to focus on multi-threading due to it being a low-end part.
What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
I just recently upgraded my AMD x4 620 to the new Haswell i7-4770 and I have yet to find a game that is really hurting my fps. This i7 was only $300 and it has the 8 threads, they look like cores to me when I bring up performance monitor, lol.
I got Crysis II on Steam last night for $6 to test it and it is set for full Ultra quality and my machine is not phased yet. Skyrim with a hardcore ENB setting is hitting the machine harder than Crysis II. I need to try out 3.
I do a lot of movie encoding and that is the reason I went with the i7 instead of the i5, plus it was only $30 more so it looked like a no brainer to me.
Currently? Not a lot. In a future game-developers-do-fine-threading reality, the difference could be fairly meaningful.What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
would like an i7 8 core processor.
Yeah, we don't need 8 cores for gaming. Intel should just make all "gaming" chips 4GHz dual cores, since that's all we really need, limit the memory to a maximum 8GB of RAM (since we don't need more). Yeah, restrict all gaming chips to 4GHz dual cores and lock them down (since if they're clocked faster by default, we won't need to overclock them for gaming)
There's absolutely no point in making a processor that could, say, do everything you could ask from it right? No point in making a dual capable, unlocked 12 or 15 core CPU that could encode video faster than anything else, game faster than anything else, compile faster than anything else...and do it ALL at the same time in ONE rig??!!??
Nope, no point at all. Let's just build separate rigs for each task we need to do....
I would love 12 core / 24 threaded 4GHz+ stock processor at work. I would easily peg all cores at 100% CPU usage during some of my work although other parts of my work only one of those cores will get much work.. Although even if this did exist the price would be way out of what I could convince the boss I could spend on such a system..
Intel is going to come the the same issue it faced with the P4. You need keep improving but you can't push ahead on speed, so you need to increase core count. I'm rocking an i5-2500k and would love to upgrade, as would people with i7-920s but we have nothing worth while to upgrade to. I know that gamers don't count for that many sales, however, many people that use computer for work would also like to upgrade. I'm sure that people into video editing, modeling ect. would like an i7 8 core processor.
But that's so far all just speculation as I heard graphite might be the future.
Maybe you missed the part where everyone was talking about "Gaming", not everything else.
Bitter much?
I am normally the overkill kind of guy, but for pure gaming, again, you don't need an Octocore.
15c 30t Xeons have already been released for LGA2011.
They'll cost you $6500 each for dual-QPI chips @ 2.8gHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75242/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-2890-v2-37_5M-Cache-2_80-GHz
[21CW]killerofall;1040693346 said:You could always game on this but it will likely set you back somewhere around $400k or so (price wasn't listed, and the saying goes if you have to ask...). Note the 60 cores and 6TB of RAM . "If its worth doing. It is worth overdoing." Mythbusters
The only downside is you couldn't do SLI/Crossfire. But you could make one hell of a RAM drive .
Linkage to manufacture product page: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10QBI.cfm
lutjens, not sure why your obsessed with Dual Cores and Intel making only dual cores, since there was no mention of that anywhere i saw. Intel will make what ever they want because they know "pure gamers" will go out and buy 8,10 or 12 core CPU's for their gaming rigs, just like people who buy SLI / Xfire rigs with 2,3 or 4 cards for 1080 screens when %99 of the time they don't need it.
Intel isnt making 4Ghz dual core or quads because they can't, reliably, same issue back in the p4 days as mentioned, they hit a speed barrier and couldnt get past it so invent HT, and then toss more cores at the problem/ but then if RAW GHZ was better. AMD would be so far ahead of Intel on performance, but they are not.
4 slower cores will be better for video encoding than 2 faster cores unless your talking like 1.6Ghz quads vs 4Ghz dual cores.....
It isnt worth it for intel to make an over clockable dual core i3, because most people who over clock, want more than 2 cores i assume......Or Intel just doesnt want people buying cheap $150 CPU's to get performance close to a $200+ CPU.
People like to be excessive "just incase", we all do it, or have done it, and some of us eventually realize we don't need it and spend that money elsewhere.
I to do many things at once on my computer while i game, and i held back and bought an i5 instead of an i7 on my rig i have right now, because when i had my i7, and i told myself i was going to be doing 100 things at once, in the end, i barely did.
i only build quad cores for people because of the "what if..." scenario's of what they may be doing in 3 months, 1 year, 2 years.
Buying a system that just meets one's needs often is a path to dissatisfaction. As one's needs grow, folks who buy a system that only meets their immediate needs can easily find themselves with an inadequate machine in short order. Going along with the premise of only buying a system that's needed, the theoretical dual core CPU should be all that's needed for a strictly gaming machine, but many users will find themselves seeking more CPU performance as time goes on, often not long after purchase. The same goes for storage, power supply capacity, video card performance and chassis size. I've built minimalist computers for people, who against my advice, wanted a barebones configuration. Often, a short time later, either their needs have expanded or were larger than they let on initially. These same people contact me, realizing that they should have commissioned a more well-rounded system in the first place and sheepishly ask for quotes to upgrade. They end up spending more by upgrading than they would have to build a decent system from the outset.
Folks who do a lot on their machines and who can use the power that an 8 or 12 core unlocked CPU could provide should be able to purchase one. Many people don't just want it for vanity or for something to do...they can actually use such a chip and many can use the power that two of these processors together would offer. These folks want such a CPU, and want it badly. Intel steadfastly refuses to release one, believing that there is no interest in such a CPU, basing their decision on the poor sales of the QX9775 back in the day. This is a fallacy, as back then, one could take any low speed Xeon and overclock it to the level of the QX9775, often with no issues whatsoever, which made spending big money on the QX9775 pointless. Today, it's a different story, and as there would be no other CPU to choose from, a significant number of people would eagerly ante up for such a chip today. They can't, however, because Intel steadfastly and adamently refuses to release any unlocked processor with more than 6 cores (yes I know Haswell-E is coming), let alone a dual-capable one, basically flipping the bird at what they should be considering it's most valued customers.
There is also an insane degree of overkill that few people truly need to indulge in and do so just because they feel like it. It's a hobby to them, they can afford it, and although they don't really need an over-the-top system, they build it anyway. As you mentioned, some get bored of this and realize that they don't need such a system and refrain from building one in the future. But some truly enjoy being able to build a system like that and manufacturers should be catering to folks in that category, not marginalizing them by denying availability of top drawer hardware.
@Tsumi It's funny that you seem to be against high end CPUs, a core2due celeron is enough when you have a core i7 3820. If they don't release better CPUs power users won't feel the need to upgrade. When friends ask them about upgrading they will recommend against it. Similarly when people recommended against upgrading to Vista. This can have an effect on the market. If everyone is saying that we have nothing to upgrade to than many people will follow the sentiment.
To be honest, Intel doesn't give a crap about your family, and why should they? Of course their is a market segment that only goes on facebook and reads e-mails. They run hand-me-down systems and have no intention of buying a new computer at any price point. This group is irrelevant to Intel. My father an I build mid-range systems and we both have i5-2500k builds. When something good comes out we will either sell or parts to the second hand market or hand them down to my 2 sisters depending on how many years it take and what we can get selling them.