The people talking about ITX have good points; I almost don't consider them to be in the desktop category, but one of their own that is in between desktop and mobile devices.
CPU: 2600K @ 4.6
RAM: 8Gb 1866 9-10-9-27
GPU: 670 4Gb
PSU: 500w
Cooling: H80 with push pull Gentle Typhoons AP-15
Small doesnt have to mean slow.
^ H80 cooler.
the need aspect yes.
The greed aspect no...
Everyone wants to be 1ghz higher then the next person who posted while holding the same voltage.
I want both, with a slow reduction in power use over years of development/upgrades. Kind of inbetween the two poll options.
I want both, with a slow reduction in power use over years of development/upgrades. Kind of inbetween the two poll options.
Thats what most want and what we get. But the poll was biased to avoid that option.
It may not be what we want, but as you say at the end, we don't really have a choice. Any big jump will have to wait for materials science to catch up, or immerse our systems in liquid helium.I don't think that is what most enthusiasts want. It is what we have gotten though. When you look at Intel's xtor performance curves, increasing clocks decreases the switching speed advantage offered by their current processes.
I'd like a 4 GHz Haswell to make my 4 GHz Nehalem look like it was standing still. Sadly, that's not the case.
What ever I want, as CPUs shrink, they are going need lower total thermal output otherwise they will become self igniting. At the moment, physics sucks.
Thats what most want and what we get. But the poll was biased to avoid that option.
Given that this would describe Intel's roadmap for the past 6-7 yrs, there is probably a rather specific reason why it was not captured as a voting option by the poll.
AtenRa, I picked the performance option myself but let's face the truth. If Intel could cram 50% more performance at a given TDP, they would do so if only for the desktop market.
Instead, core number is limited by Amadahl's law, core size is limited by law of diminishing returns, and clock speeds are limited by both power usage and heat density barriers. Intel has dedicated a lot of funding and time into maximizing IPC and introducing new instructions when possible.
What more can they really do? All the other options have significant drawbacks. How would they deliver 50% more performance without either a increase in cores which only benefits multithreaded code (not ubiquitous) or increase in clock speeds (requires expensive cooling and power delivery).
I want what you want. I just don't see how it is possible with current CPU tech.
I can give you the same performance at half the power usage and you will jump all over the place and say that intel raised its performance/watt. Thats not what High-End desktop users want.
We want the same power usage(130W) but 50% more performance with every new node at the same price point. That still get you higher performance/watt at the same price point
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
I want both, with a slow reduction in power use over years of development/upgrades. Kind of inbetween the two poll options.
^ H80 cooler.
Decreases in power usage suit the overall market. Cheaper cooling solutions and the enabling of more powerful chips in smaller form factors is the goal here. If you are ok with a higher TDP, simply increase the voltage and clockspeed and overclock. Intel lets you do it and even offers a cheap plan to cover damages.
22nm in particular offered a larger power decrease at a performance level compared to a performance increase at a power level. It makes sense that Intel would take advantage of the larger benefit. If Intel could offer a 10x performance increase for 10W more, they would do it. If Intel could offer Core 2 performance in a 10W TDP, they would do it.
They(Intel) deleberately delayed the release of the 22nm socket 2011 CPUs because they know that power users and Gamers would buy those over socket 1155/1150.
I may have not made it clear in the poll but the first chose is all about having more performance at the higher power levels we had before, that is at 130W TDP CPUs.