Yet you claim to know a lot about these extreme gamers and what they want. So...speculating again?
You should ask Intel, because it's their definition of "extreme gamer" that we're talking about. And they did not provide more details in the article that what already has been mentioned.
I do not claim to know. I am only guesstimating, like all others in the threads, since we don't have more details from Intel on what they mean by "extreme gamers".Yet you claim to know a lot about these extreme gamers and what they want.
Yes, speculating/rationalizing. We don't have any more info to go by as far as I'm aware, so that's the best we can do. But all of this has already been explained. Don't you read the posts in the thread!? Or are you just intentionally forgetting to create drama?So...speculating again?
I really dont see why Shintai is trying to justify average joe buying six core cpu. Average joe doesnt even buy a quad core. Obviously a six core cpu would be for the high end (xeon e3 and high end desktop).
Little bird whispered 4-6 cores for mainstream and 8-10 for Extreme by 2017.
If true, im getting more and more exciting about upgrading in 2017
He's doing the exact opposite. It's everyone else in the thread attempting to justify why Intel should release a hexcore mainstream processor when most gamers won't even buy the 6700k and insist the 6600k is enough which I was told multiple times in the skylake thread. But yet even though a 6600k is enough, a hexcore is needed mainstream with hyperthreading.....I really dont see why Shintai is trying to justify average joe buying six core cpu. Average joe doesnt even buy a quad core. Obviously a six core cpu would be for the high end (xeon e3 and high end desktop).
By 2017 I'll just be ready for a new processor. I really doubt it'll be a major upgrade, but if perf/watt is up significantly then I'm in the same boat as you and will upgrade. I'm more and more sensitive to power consumption now that I already have the performance I want.I would disagree with single core, but yeah, most are fine with dual-core for sure.
That said, I think I'm going to hold off on both my laptop and my desktop until 2017, just because... well... rumours.
Even if the number of course doesn't go up though, at least the performance-per-watt will have increased.
I am not
Again, for the third time, so what core count are you suggesting for the Average Joe then?
I dont suggest anything. Average Joe have already decided by voting with the wallet what said person needs. And its not in your favour.
Simply. They use a Single Core as the new lowest and the Small Cores as the new mainstream. The wet dream of Intel.@ShitaiDK:
Let's assume this scenario:
* Intel has close to monopoly on x86 CPUs.
* They have two options: 2 core CPU priced at $200, and 4 core CPUs priced at $2000 (and paired with two generation old chipset, uArch and process tech).
* The 4 core CPUs do not sell much at all.
Would you take the above as proof of that the Average Joe and enthusiasts do not need more than 2 cores?
Simply. They use a Single Core as the new lowest and the Small Cores as the new mainstream. The wet dream of Intel.
AtenRa said:Little bird whispered 4-6 cores for mainstream and 8-10 for Extreme by 2017.
If true, im getting more and more exciting about upgrading in 2017
Well, the "average Joe" doesn't drive (or need) a Corvette or Mazda RX-8 or whatever sports car you want to name either, but the makers still build them because there *is* a market for them and they bring prestige to the brand.
Even more hilarious people advocating for a mainstream 6 core chip while the vast majority of "extreme" gamers won't even purchase i7s with their rigs.
Lol this is why the cpu discussion is a joke, people here are stupidly out of touch with reality.
There isn't any incentive to put more than 4 cores on a client chip. Lets be honest, more IGP would be more beneficial than more cores.
By that logic we would not have octa-core phone SOCs. No one needs that. If the SOC makers keep up with this BS I might actually buy an IPhone at some point. For sure better to have stronger but less cores than eight weak ones.
Meaning the incentive would be to get users to upgrade. Why would intel care if it gives the consumer little benefit as long as they do upgrade? Desktop isn't stagnating just because it's uncool. There really is no incentive to do so.
Vanilla ARM companies only do it because that is all they can do in their clone wars.
In short:http://www.anandtech.com/show/9518/the-mobile-cpu-corecount-debate/18
When I started out this piece the goals I set out to reach was to either confirm or debunk on how useful homogeneous 8-core designs would be in the real world. The fact that Chrome and to a lesser extent Samsung's stock browser were able to consistently load up to 6-8 concurrent processes while loading a page suddenly gives a lot of credence to these 8-core designs that we would have otherwise not thought of being able to fully use their designed CPU configurations.
[...]
What we see in the use-case analysis is that the amount of use-cases where an application is visibly limited due to single-threaded performance seems be very limited. In fact, a large amount of the analyzed scenarios our test-device with Cortex A57 cores would rarely need to ramp up to their full frequency beyond short bursts (Thermal throttling was not a factor in any of the tests). On the other hand, scenarios were we'd find 3-4 high load threads seem not to be that particularly hard to find, and actually appear to be an a pretty common occurence. For mobile, the choice seems to be obvious due to the power curve implications. In scenarios where we're not talking about having loads so small that it becomes not worthwhile to spend the energy to bring a secondary core out of its idle state, one could generalize that if one is able to spread the load over multiple CPUs, it will always preferable and more efficient to do so.
[...]
In the end what we should take away from this analysis is that Android devices can make much better use of multi-threading than initially expected. There's very solid evidence that not only are 4.4 big.LITTLE designs validated, but we also find practical benefits of using 8-core "little" designs over similar single-cluster 4-core SoCs. For the foreseeable future it seems that vendors who rely on ARM's CPU designs will be well served with a continued use of 4.4 b.L designs.