Something like i7=hex core+HT, i5=quad core+Ht, i3=quad, no HT, pentium= dual core+Ht, celeron= dual core no HT. Basically increase the threads/cores at every level except the absolute bottom end celeron.
That would be great indeed. I would certainly upgrade. But it would be a one time thing, and after that people would still wait just as long with the next upgrade. No continuous increased revenue for Intel.
And even more important. Nothing gained or changed for the 99% crowd.
.....Until multi-user home server software becomes more commonplace.
Then one machine replaces two or more (powerful) desktop machines.
And with a low idle it could be left on 24/7 (not just in sleep) so it can be accessed outside the home as well.
Sounds complicated and a PITA to maintain. Doubt the 99% will go for that.
Ask youself who would want a home server. Rather than cloud.
The home server ideas died with cloud.
Maybe the question should be why would someone want cloud when the same can be done cheaply in the home?
Also see this Anandtech article on smart home:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9174/home-automation-systems-a-consumer-checklist
Some of the Cloud services are used for data mining. I'll pass on that.
Ask youself who would want a home server. Rather than cloud.
The home server ideas died with cloud.
Nah, the cloud is even worse for the average home user. Except for maybe cloud storage backup or similar.
How did you imagine a dedicated multiuser server would be cheap in any way? And do you think people want that at home, not to mention running 24/7? What about maintaining, support, access?
Its like asking to drop virtualization and go back to single servers.
I think Microsoft (or whoever does this) will just make it easy to use (see post #206).
And with a low idle it won't cost much to run.
Microsoft and the consumers decided cloud.
And you forgot all the other points.
Windows Home Server got axed 3 years ago for the same reason due to going cloud. (Last version being 4 years old)
The cloud is the future. Even I can see this and I don't use it. Intel has no incentive to release cheap cheap mainstream 6 core chips.... revenue from PC enthusiasts is a very small portion of their bottom line... and people who really want the 6 and 8 core ships bad enough will pay for them, just like they pay $650 for a 980ti.
I think they're silly even having a $400 6 core part... if they were smart they'd make it $600, lacking any serious competition. It's the only think I've seriously given thought toward upgrading too (5820K) though I would not pay $600... many people would.
The cloud is the future. Even I can see this and I don't use it. Intel has no incentive to release cheap cheap mainstream 6 core chips.... revenue from PC enthusiasts is a very small portion of their bottom line... and people who really want the 6 and 8 core ships bad enough will pay for them, just like they pay $650 for a 980ti.
I think they're silly even having a $400 6 core part... if they were smart they'd make it $600, lacking any serious competition. It's the only think I've seriously given thought toward upgrading too (5820K) though I would not pay $600... many people would.[/QUOTE
Maybe the cloud is the future if you have fast, reliable, cheap internet without any bandwidth caps. But with my internet, it takes 12 hours or more to download a 50gb game. I can only imagine how long it would take to do a terabyte backup.
Actually if AMD dies that octa core could jump up to 1500 dollars without any problem... and the QUAD Cores could be entered at 350 dollars....The cloud is the future. Even I can see this and I don't use it. Intel has no incentive to release cheap cheap mainstream 6 core chips.... revenue from PC enthusiasts is a very small portion of their bottom line... and people who really want the 6 and 8 core ships bad enough will pay for them, just like they pay $650 for a 980ti.
I think they're silly even having a $400 6 core part... if they were smart they'd make it $600, lacking any serious competition. It's the only think I've seriously given thought toward upgrading too (5820K) though I would not pay $600... many people would.
It was 3 at 22nm. It is supposed to be 3 in 14nm. But for the delay from 22nm to 14nm, it would have been 4 on 14nm. What do you want to bet that 10nm et seq will be four?
Actually if AMD dies that octa core could jump up to 1500 dollars without any problem... and the QUAD Cores could be entered at 350 dollars....
Actually that is retarded to being sincere...They will never make it that obvious. For example:
Top of the line:
-Xeon E5 2690: $2057, successor to the top E5 v2 is E5 2690 v2 right?
Nope its,
-Xeon E5 2697 v2: $2614, but they have a E5 2690 v2
-Xeon E5 2699 v3: $4115, but they have,
Xeon E5 2697 v3: $2702
Xeon E5 2690 v3: $2090
Everybody compares E5 2690 to E5 2697 v2, and E5 2697 v2, to E5 2699 v3. The thing is if you compare top SKU to top SKU, they increase the price every time. If they have real competition, E5 2690, 2697 v2, and 2699 v3 would have cost the same.
They can price the "5% extra performance" at $350, and create ANOTHER line at $450 that does 10% extra for Desktops. Call it Core i7 Plus, Core i7+, or whatever.