PC Client shipments in free fall Q1.

[zentan]

I think this is the new 'normal'. Everyone should get used to it.



Most people have 'good enough' computers already. Why replace what is not broke?

That's one of the biggest causes probably.Most people with windows7 and above with powerful enough hardware who are just normal regular users don't really see a big incentive enough to spend on something(both from software(OS) and hardware).

 

[ShintaiDK]

I dont think people as such think its "good enough". Its more that they accept "good enough" due to financial limitations.

 

[TechFan1]

I think it also has to do with PCs not inspiring a strong emotional need/want to upgrade. My parents just spent $3000 on a new tv to replace the 10 year old one, but are still seemingly happy with their core 2 duo pc. They definitely could afford it, but they see it as still functional, so don't bother to buy a new one.

 

[frozentundra123456]

At the right price, the atom stuff has a place. For instance, I just saw an atom 9 inch convertible at walmat for 80 bucks. If anyone is interested I put a link in the Bay Trail thread. These small netbooks and tablets let you get into a windows device for sub hundred dollars. Cant beat that really.

But I agree, for desktops and larger laptops, they are a terrible fit.

 

[Anon_lawyer]

I dont think people as such think its "good enough". Its more that they accept "good enough" due to financial limitations.

I don't think this is true at all. A large and growing number of people see their phones as their primary computing device. They may (or may not...) have a PC on their desk at work, if they need it... but for a large and growing number of people, their smartphones satisfy their computing needs. Many/most of these people have access to a PC, e.g. at work, or in their household... but don't see it as adding enough value to ever buy their own. It is absolutely not the case that most households actually want a PC for each person in the household. 10 years ago, arguably it was. Now most people need access to a PC occasionally. At work, one at home shared between multiple people, whatever. Brand new I7, Sandy Bridge I-3, unless it can't handle Netflix the average user does not notice the difference.

 

[seitur]

I don't think this is true at all. A large and growing number of people see their phones as their primary computing device. They may (or may not...) have a PC on their desk at work, if they need it... but for a large and growing number of people, their smartphones satisfy their computing needs. Many/most of these people have access to a PC, e.g. at work, or in their household... but don't see it as adding enough value to ever buy their own. It is absolutely not the case that most households actually want a PC for each person in the household. 10 years ago, arguably it was. Now most people need access to a PC occasionally. At work, one at home shared between multiple people, whatever. Brand new I7, Sandy Bridge I-3, unless it can't handle Netflix the average user does not notice the difference.

I don't this is true either.

Smartphones craze happened cause it was breakthrough, similarly to laptops getting cheap and light or cellphones going from expensive, analogue bricks to light digital devices.


Smartphone craze is dying out, it is getting in same place PC market went 5+ years ago. One reason is because market is getting saturated, but it would not be nowhere this bad if majority of population finances would be better.

People would keep exchanging their smartphones to new model every 2 years like they did in last decade if they could continue to afford it, but finances are getting worse so they stick with "good enough" old smartphone or exchange it to new but cheaper one.

Sound familiar?

Same went for PC 5+ years ago. While average person would not change their Pentium/i3 to i7 obviously, but they would change monitor of their "shared household PC" to a new bigger one, they would exchange their HDD to SSD, they would get new mouse, new printer, etc They would exchange their PC unit every 3,4 or 5 years and not keep 6-8+ year old C2D one, etc

Saturated markets can do good. Slower pace, but still good, with nice reasonable returns and occasional high growth shorter or longer bursts once breakthrough tech comes.

Thing is people have to have money for that. If they don't - market will suffer. This is true for cars, TV, PC and soon it will for Smartphones too.

 

[nerp]

I don't meet people who want a traditional desktop computer anymore and I talk to a lot of people all the time. Look around. People don't buy desktop computers. They buy laptops if they need more than a tablet and phone. This is the market now. Desktops are the realm of content creators and corporations. And even then, a laptop with a dock and big screen and keyboard and mouse is preferred by many instead of a desktop.

It's just the way it is. Any effort to read between the lines is silly. It misses the boat. The days of the "family computer" are done. People are not going to suddenly start gobbling up new desktops this Christmas.

 

[Anon_lawyer]

I don't this is true either.

Smartphones craze happened cause it was breakthrough, similarly to laptops getting cheap and light or cellphones going from expensive, analogue bricks to light digital devices.


Smartphone craze is dying out, it is getting in same place PC market went 5+ years ago. One reason is because market is getting saturated, but it would not be nowhere this bad if majority of population finances would be better.

People would keep exchanging their smartphones to new model every 2 years like they did in last decade if they could continue to afford it, but finances are getting worse so they stick with "good enough" old smartphone or exchange it to new but cheaper one.

Sound familiar?

Same went for PC 5+ years ago. While average person would not change their Pentium/i3 to i7 obviously, but they would change monitor of their "shared household PC" to a new bigger one, they would exchange their HDD to SSD, they would get new mouse, new printer, etc They would exchange their PC unit every 3,4 or 5 years and not keep 6-8+ year old C2D one, etc

Saturated markets can do good. Slower pace, but still good, with nice reasonable returns and occasional high growth shorter or longer bursts once breakthrough tech comes.

Thing is people have to have money for that. If they don't - market will suffer. This is true for cars, TV, PC and soon it will for Smartphones too.

I don't exactly disagree with this, but the delta is important. Ten years ago, if you wanted your own computing device you needed a PC. Either a desktop or a laptop. Today, if you have access to a PC at work, or a shared one at home, you don't need your own. For personal use, the vast majority of cases are covered by phones, and to a lesser extent by tablets. It's not that PCs are disappearing - just that they're only one component of a much expanded computing universe. That translates into significant shrinkage in sales volume. Most likely it will stabilize somewhere, but for now, it's an open question where.

[edit]

Also, just to address the financial issue - no doubt if everyone had more money, some additional PCs would be sold.* Blaming the decline on the economy, however, is seriously misguided. The number of PCs sales isn't shrinking because people can't afford them. A cheap PC can be had for less than an Iphone. It's shrinking because with phones and tablets available as substitutes, the value a PC provides consumers has shrunk.

* On the other hand, there are plenty of people on these forums who could afford to upgrade their Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge systems today if they wanted to - and don't because they don't see the value.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't meet people who want a traditional desktop computer anymore and I talk to a lot of people all the time. Look around. People don't buy desktop computers. They buy laptops if they need more than a tablet and phone. This is the market now. Desktops are the realm of content creators and corporations. And even then, a laptop with a dock and big screen and keyboard and mouse is preferred by many instead of a desktop.

It's just the way it is. Any effort to read between the lines is silly. It misses the boat. The days of the "family computer" are done. People are not going to suddenly start gobbling up new desktops this Christmas.

Well, except for "poor" "Gamers". Meaning those that want to play modern games, but don't want to drop $2000 on a high-end gaming laptop. So they drop $500-1200 on a gaming desktop instead.

 

[nerp]

Look at it this way. I have computers everywhere I turn in my house, but I am an exception to the rule, right? When it comes time to pay my bills, I whip out my iPhone, log in with Touch ID, never have to enter a password and can pay everything for the month in 2 minutes more easily than ever sitting at any of my computers.

When it comes to email, I need a powerful desktop email client like Outlook because of work. But not everyone lives and breathes email for work all day. They can get along just fine with a smartphone to check their email. Social networking is actually a better experience on mobile in most cases. Or, consider Instagram or Snapchat. A desktop computer simply cannot use those apps. Do you know how many people use both Instagram of Snapchat every day? People don't watch movies on their computers anymore if their TV has netflix built in. You can come up with examples like this all day long. And in the end, it makes clear that desktop computers in homes are a defining aspect of the 1990s and early 2000s.

You want to gauge where the industry is headed? Go to a furniture store. You do not see computer desks with CPU cabinets and keyboard trays at IKEA anymore. But you do see a lot of side tables, living room and bedroom furniture designed to offer places to store and charge mobile devices.

Go grab any adult -- ask them, would you like a nice dell desktop computer with a monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc, set up in their home office with wires everywhere? Or would they like a dell XPS 13 laptop and wireless speaker? They will pick the laptop.

 

[nerp]

Well, except for "poor" "Gamers". Meaning those that want to play modern games, but don't want to drop $2000 on a high-end gaming laptop. So they drop $500-1200 on a gaming desktop instead.

The PC gaming market is a market but it is a small portion of the market. I hope there is a big resurgence in PC gaming and I do see some growth especially with the barriers between consoles and PCs falling apart and eventually vanishing in the next 10 years. The real money in the business revolves around mass-market consumer PCs and corporate sales of desktops. Some companies have nice margins in their gaming PC businesses but the overall volume is very low as compared to the total desktop market. This means that the desktop PC market will continue to shrink rapidly even if gaming PC sales increase. It's a tough reality but it is what it is.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Look at it this way. I have computers everywhere I turn in my house, but I am an exception to the rule, right? When it comes time to pay my bills, I whip out my iPhone, log in with Touch ID, never have to enter a password and can pay everything for the month in 2 minutes more easily than ever sitting at any of my computers.

When it comes to email, I need a powerful desktop email client like Outlook because of work. But not everyone lives and breathes email for work all day. They can get along just fine with a smartphone to check their email. Social networking is actually a better experience on mobile in most cases. Or, consider Instagram or Snapchat. A desktop computer simply cannot use those apps. Do you know how many people use both Instagram of Snapchat every day? People don't watch movies on their computers anymore if their TV has netflix built in. You can come up with examples like this all day long. And in the end, it makes clear that desktop computers in homes are a defining aspect of the 1990s and early 2000s.

You want to gauge where the industry is headed? Go to a furniture store. You do not see computer desks with CPU cabinets and keyboard trays at IKEA anymore. But you do see a lot of side tables, living room and bedroom furniture designed to offer places to store and charge mobile devices.

Go grab any adult -- ask them, would you like a nice dell desktop computer with a monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc, set up in their home office with wires everywhere? Or would they like a dell XPS 13 laptop and wireless speaker? They will pick the laptop.

Actually, I would take the desktop. You can upgrade it, repair it if something goes wrong, and get a lot more computing power for the price. I know I am in the minority though, but there are some people that still prefer a desktop.

 

[poohbear]

Its becoming quite ugly now. Q1 may be the biggest setback for Intel and AMD yet in the client space.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...oo-high-as-q2-pcs-likely-weak-says-pac-crest/



Smartphones suffers the same. Production cuts and declines.

That's what happens when wealth is generated by finance capitalism and not production. People cant afford it and companies dont invest.

What do u mean by your finance capitalism comment? Me and others think it's glaringly obvious ppl don't upgrade simply because there is absolutely no need to upgrade anymore. Do u upgrade your TV every 2 years? No? Then why would u upgrade anything after sandy bridge? Sandy bridge might as well be called "the last modern cpu" because it's performance hasn't been trounced for the average user in any application/program. Normal users simply don't need to upgrade anymore.

There was an excellent article in the Economist a couple of months back titled "after Moore's law: the future of computing" which spoke of the demise of Moore's law. It said hardware improvements for the avg user are irrelevant and the future of computing is in 3 areas of growth:

-software (ie A.I.: Slower progress in hardware will force cleverer & more efficient software)

-cloud computing (i.e. powerful CPUs in the cloud that do all the number crunching for u over the internet)

-specialized computing for specific tasks (ie a cpu specifically designed for a car & its needs).

Really interesting read & I recommend it. Here's the link:

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...mputer-hardware-ending-what-comes-next-future

 

[tential]

Pcs becoming less and less crucial to upgrade combined with our political and economic atmosphere (not sure if we should bring that in here shintai but I absolutely believe that is in part why sales are plummeting kna luxury good that we don't really need as we already have working ones) it's no wonder were seeing declines. I haven't bought a new smartphone in years and there is no task I do now that a new phone would do better that would be worth the cost.

Sent from my C6833 using Tapatalk

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

I said it before, and ill say it again, I feel intel is not giving people a reason to upgrade... Same old 4 cores (4 cores have been out since 2009), barely any IPC gain per generation, and OC potential stays the same or is made worse.... There is nothing for me to sink my teeth into unless I want to pay high prices for HEDP using old architecture.

Each generation I think 'nah, ill pass, Intel can do better'.

 

[escrow4]

Pcs becoming less and less crucial to upgrade combined with our political and economic atmosphere (not sure if we should bring that in here shintai but I absolutely believe that is in part why sales are plummeting kna luxury good that we don't really need as we already have working ones) it's no wonder were seeing declines. I haven't bought a new smartphone in years and there is no task I do now that a new phone would do better that would be worth the cost.

Sent from my C6833 using Tapatalk

I've dumped the phones I used to buy recently. Nothing can beat a desktop especially not a teeny tiny 6" phone.

 

[RussianSensation]

I said it before, and ill say it again, I feel intel is not giving people a reason to upgrade... Same old 4 cores (4 cores have been out since 2009), barely any IPC gain per generation, and OC potential stays the same or is made worse.... There is nothing for me to sink my teeth into unless I want to pay high prices for HEDP using old architecture.

Each generation I think 'nah, ill pass, Intel can do better'.

I bought Q6600 quad for $300 US around August 2007. Intel launched i7 920 for $284 about a year or so later. Intel had affordable quads way before 2009.

At the same time, DDR4 is dirt cheap where you can get 16GB of 3000+ for $80/90. Old Intel parts still hold their value well. It's not that expensive to dump old Sandy/Ivy parts and go Skylake. X58 owners are even better off since used X58 boards still sell for obscene prices. It all depends on what you do with your comp. I held on to a 2500K for as long as I could but it doesn't cut it anymore to keep for another 5 years. I decided to dump all those parts since sooner or later their resale value will go even lower and it'll actually cost more $ to upgrade.

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

I bought Q6600 quad for $300 US around August 2007. Intel launched i7 920 for $284 about a year or so later. Intel had affordable quads way before 2009.

Oops, you are right, I 100% forgot about that CPU. Kind of sad looking at wiki, it's like Intel made great progress from 1, to 2, to 4 cores in 2007 and 2008, but started putting on the breaks in 2009.

Even the i7-920 was release late 2008 for $284, but here we are almost 8 years later and double the core count cost people about $1000 USD.... And Intel wonders why I am not giving them my money?

At the same time, DDR4 is dirt cheap where you can get 16GB of 3000+ for $80/90. Old Intel parts still hold their value well. It's not that expensive to dump old Sandy/Ivy parts and go Skylake. X58 owners are even better off since used X58 boards still sell for obscene prices.

I got an x58a-ud5 board, but can't really sale it tho. Nothing to replace it, skylake is too expensive since its only 4 cores, especially with the Canadian dollar.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I said it before, and ill say it again, I feel intel is not giving people a reason to upgrade... Same old 4 cores (4 cores have been out since 2009), barely any IPC gain per generation, and OC potential stays the same or is made worse.... There is nothing for me to sink my teeth into unless I want to pay high prices for HEDP using old architecture.

Each generation I think 'nah, ill pass, Intel can do better'.

Your X58 was "High End Desktop" and you seemed to have no issue shelling out for it?

Also, if the IPC gain per generation is underwhelming what does it matter that HEDT is a generation behind in architecture? It's a server grade chip meaning it takes more time to validate, but in return you get bigger cache, more memory channels, and more cores.

You're not making any sense.

 

[RussianSensation]

Even the i7-920 was release late 2008 for $284, but here we are almost 8 years later and double the core count cost people about $1000 USD.... And Intel wonders why I am not giving them my money?

The real answer is probably because you haven't done a proper cost analysis by ignoring all the $ you spent on electricity on that i7 920 assuming it's OCed, as well as have either ignored the gigantic increase in single threaded performance on those new Skylake cores over your Nehalem or you just don't use your rig for any modern gaming, rendering, video editing, etc.

You aren't comparing apples-to-apples when you suggest the only viable upgrade for you is a $1000 USD processor.

Your i7 920 $284 has been replaced by $389 6-core i7 5820K, soon to be i7 6820K (or whatever). However, the $100 increase in price is not the correct context here since your X58 board is completely outdated from PCIe 1.0/1.1, lacks any of the modern SATA 3 ports, M.2/U.2 storage ports, and at 4.0-4.4Ghz gobbles power like no tomorrow in both idle and load states. Not to mention 6GB (2GB x3GB0 of DDR3 in 2008-2009 cost an arm and a leg, I bet like $150-200 USD. Today 16GB DDR4 3000 is $80.

How much did the entire i7 920 + X58 + DDR3 cost back in 2008? At least $700 USD, right?

Today, even a 4.4Ghz 8-core 5960X uses less power than an i7 920 OC to 4Ghz! i7 6700K OC uses half of what an i7 920 OC system does.

I got an x58a-ud5 board, but can't really sale it tho. Nothing to replace it, skylake is too expensive since its only 4 cores, especially with the Canadian dollar.

Do you realize that already in 2011 a Core i7 2600K OC leveled a 6-core $1000 Core i7 990X OC for most tasks people use their PCs? So how do you think a $1000 2016 CPU is the only viable upgrade?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_3.html

A stock i7 6700K would run circles around your i7 920.

Have you not looked at reviews?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/11

For all programs that use single-threaded performance, i7 6700K OC would slaughter an i7 920 OC by more than i7 920 beat a Q6600 OC.

If you need more cores, the upcoming BW-E 6-core would still be a huge upgrade from what you have.

If you had an i7 2600K OC or 3930K OC, I'd totally understand the smack talking but i7 920 is obsolete. If you don't find it obsolete, it simply means you don't use your PC for anything intensive like gaming or rendering or video work. If you did, no way would you be saying that there is no viable upgrade path from an i7 920.

Sorry, but i7 920 even with a 4Ghz overclock is long outdated using objective benchmarks, whether productivity or games.

This is stock vs. stock.

Also, I am not sure why you say your X58 cannot be sold unless it's not stable? I bet right now you can sell your i7 920 + X58 + DDR3 for $200 USD.

$390 i7 6800/6820K
$200 X99
$80 16GB DDR4 3000
- $200 resale
= $470 USD

That new system overclocked will last another 5-7 years.

Total cost of ownership per year is:
5 years = $470 / 5 = $94
7 years = $470 / 7 = $67

That's assuming $0 resale value on BW-E.

That's 2 months cell phone bill per year to own a cutting edge 6-core Intel processor or 4-core Skylake for 5-7 years.

At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any outdated PC if it fits the users needs. However, let's not try an downplay the gigantic level of improvement that Intel has brought from an i7 920 to an i7 6700K/i7 5820K and soon to launch $389 6-core BW-E.

 

[RussianSensation]

I got an x58a-ud5 board, but can't really sale it tho. Nothing to replace it, skylake is too expensive since its only 4 cores, especially with the Canadian dollar.

If I was in your position and wasn't happy with current prices of GPUs, I would strongly consider a 6-core Xeon. A lot of these can be purchased for $100 USD and with a solid cooler can overclock to 4.4-4.6Ghz.

Intel Xeon Processor X5670 Six Cores 2.93 GHz/12M/6.40GT LGA1366 SLBV7 CPU = $89 USD

At the very least, you will get 2 more cores (and I am going to assume you want that) and higher IPC and clock speed than your i7 920 (again I am assuming since I don't know if your 920 is clocked at 4.2ghz+).

If you sell your 920 for even $50, that's a very cost effective upgrade. At least take full advantage of your X58 chipset/mobo. Burpo should be able to help you pick the best Xeon CPU and max it out. :thumbsup:

Your X58 was "High End Desktop" and you seemed to have no issue shelling out for it?

Also, if the IPC gain per generation is underwhelming what does it matter that HEDT is a generation behind in architecture? It's a server grade chip meaning it takes more time to validate,

I had to dig deep into some old reviews that fairly compared an i7 Nehalem 920/930 overclocked against an overclocked i7 2600K. I remember that Sandy was my favourite architecture from Intel since I sold my i7 860 and I remember why. The upgrade from Nehalem to Sandy alone was HUGE.

Core i7 930 – 3.9GHz (stock 2.8GHz)
Core i5 2400 – 3.8GHz (stock 3.1GHz)
Core i5 2500K – 4.4GHz (stock 3.3GHz)
Core i7 2600K – 4.8GHz (stock 3.4GHz)

Source

Pretty much anyone with a Core i5 2500K and below would benefit greatly from an upgrade to any modern Intel i7.

And if someone is a gamer with an AMD card, R9 390 or higher class, an i5 from SB era is already a bottleneck, which is to say nothing of the i7 920, an architecture with a solid 16-17% lower IPC vs. Sandy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4

A 4Ghz overclocked i7 920 is only as fast as a stock i7 2600K.

Here is a stock i7 6700K vs. a stock i7 2600K. Absolute slaughter in CPU demanding games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw

The reason a lot of Sandy owners are holding on is because some of them have i7 2600K OC to 4.5-5Ghz. That's totally understandable. Everyone else with an i5 2500K and below, including an i7 920, those CPUs are a major bottleneck now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Maybe the gov't needs to step in, and do a desktop PC version of "cash for clunkers". Get a massive rebate for trading in an old power-inefficient desktop PC, with purchase of a new Skylake-based desktop PC.

(Because we all know that succeeded so well in the automotive sector, LOL.)

Just a hypothetical.

Edit: Or perhaps any pre-Sandy Bridge desktops, and pre-FM2 desktops for AMD?

The idea is that older CPUs and APUs lack power-gating, and as such, have much worse idle power draw.

 

[ksec]

Recently a theft broke into my home and stole all my iPad and my 2015 Macbook Air. ( ) Which forced me back into a 5 years old Core i3 Sandy Bridge Lenovo ThinkPad which also had an SSD ( I self upgraded it when i first bought it ) , I then upgraded it to Windows 10 and it is still a very fast. ( Windows 10 do makes things faster).

As I have been saying this for quite some time. The arrival of SSD makes things so fast, along with (Finally) some heavy Windows optimization from Microsoft. For majority of users there are no longer any needs to upgrade their PC.

On another thread I posted Business PC continue to NOT include SSD in their default and upgrading option is ridiculously expensive. By keeping Business users on HD they could try and get another cycle in the future. Trying to delay the inevitable.

For 90% of users who are basically doing Content Consumption rather then creation. There is simply no need for a faster CPU, my laptop even played HEVC fine at 4Mbps with Software Decode. May be future Software Decoder could make things even better.

Which is left with Gamers, and users who do content creation like Photoediting, Professional like 3D Graphics creator, Movie editors etc...

So basically 8GB Memory and SSD has kept majority happy. The PC cycle will likely lengthen to 6-7 years. There just isn't a killer App that will force take a PC upgrade cycle. Majority will now simply upgrade when they "think" it is old enough for a new one.

And I think, possibly, the next cycle will be to a Tablet with Attachable keyboard. But it will be a slow long road.

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

I paid $550 CAD for both my i7-930 and my x58a-ud5 (dual lan, dual pci-e, and 10 sata ports) in 2010. Today getting just a quad core Intel (6700k) would cost me $500 CAD alone without a mobo.

Your X58 was "High End Desktop" and you seemed to have no issue shelling out for it?

I got no issues shelling out for HEDT when I see value. When I went for my current build I went from a dual core AMD to a quad core Intel. Not only was the IPC about 2x in some cases, but the number of cores was 2x, so in effect in certain apps I was getting 3-4x performance for a $300 CAD CPU.

Even looking at 6700k vs 930 doesn't even give me 2x improvements in certain task (like 7zip compression).

Also, if the IPC gain per generation is underwhelming what does it matter that HEDT is a generation behind in architecture? It's a server grade chip meaning it takes more time to validate, but in return you get bigger cache, more memory channels, and more cores.

You're not making any sense.

I really want HEDT, ram upgrade alone would is starting to sound good, but I am also crazy stubborn. I have been hoping broadwell-e would be the solution to all my problems (but the rumors of $1500 CPU cast doubt into that dream).

The real answer is probably because you haven't done a proper cost analysis by ignoring all the $ you spent on electricity on that i7 920 assuming it's OCed, as well as have either ignored the gigantic increase in single threaded performance on those new Skylake cores over your Nehalem or you just don't use your rig for any modern gaming, rendering, video editing, etc.

My electricity is free, free as in free beer.

You aren't comparing apples-to-apples when you suggest the only viable upgrade for you is a $1000 USD processor.

I did not mean viable $1000 CPU. I meant if I wanted a 8 core CPU it would cost about $1000 USD. In reality a 5960x would cost me about $1500 CAD....

Your i7 920 $284 has been replaced by $389 6-core i7 5820K, soon to be i7 6820K (or whatever). However, the $100 increase in price is not the correct context here since your X58 board is completely outdated from PCIe 1.0/1.1, lacks any of the modern SATA 3 ports, M.2/U.2 storage ports, and at 4.0-4.4Ghz gobbles power like no tomorrow in both idle and load states. Not to mention 6GB (2GB x3GB0 of DDR3 in 2008-2009 cost an arm and a leg, I bet like $150-200 USD. Today 16GB DDR4 3000 is $80.

I have 12GB of ddr3 ram, USB3 ports, and six SATA 3 ports (or 4). I have considered the 5820K (it has been my best bet upgrade for a while), but based on the price ($510), the fact its only 6 cores, and the fact x99 is near end of life its just not anywhere near worth it.

How much did the entire i7 920 + X58 + DDR3 cost back in 2008? At least $700 USD, right?

$718 CAD and I threw in another 6GB of ram at $80 CAD later.

If you need more cores, the upcoming BW-E 6-core would still be a huge upgrade from what you have.

I need more cores, I want 8 or 10 cores. For a while ive been hoping Intel doesnt do anything stupid with the price, because a nice 8 or 10 core BW-E is what I want. I could even live with a 6 core if its dirt cheap.

If you had an i7 2600K OC or 3930K OC, I'd totally understand the smack talking but i7 920 is obsolete. If you don't find it obsolete, it simply means you don't use your PC for anything intensive like gaming or rendering or video work. If you did, no way would you be saying that there is no viable upgrade path from an i7 920.

I find it VERY obsolete. I just don't like what Intel is offering.

Also, I am not sure why you say your X58 cannot be sold unless it's not stable? I bet right now you can sell your i7 920 + X58 + DDR3 for $200 USD.

$390 i7 6800/6820K
$200 X99
$80 16GB DDR4 3000
- $200 resale
= $470 USD

There is no 6800 and the only 6820k is mobile, so I assume you are talking about 6700/6700k?

Math would be $500+$200+$80 = $780 (minus whatever I could sell my x58 for). All that hassle for just another 4 core.... Not worth it, I need more power.

If I was in your position and wasn't happy with current prices of GPUs, I would strongly consider a 6-core Xeon. A lot of these can be purchased for $100 USD and with a solid cooler can overclock to 4.4-4.6Ghz.

I have considered that, if nothing else to build a nice 12 core server... But Id rather not invest into old tech.

I had to dig deep into some old reviews that fairly compared an i7 Nehalem 920/930 overclocked against an overclocked i7 2600K. I remember that Sandy was my favourite architecture from Intel since I sold my i7 860 and I remember why. The upgrade from Nehalem to Sandy alone was HUGE.

I looked at all the charts you posted, and I have been tracking this for a long time (ive had $2000 allocated for a PC upgrade for like 3-4 years now). I am aware I can get something stronger. My problem is I am very stubborn. I set a 'bar' to reach for me to upgrade, and it seems each year either Intel releases something too weak, releases something too expensive, or this year looks like it will be the Canadian dollar that crushes my broadwell-e dreams (along with Intel probably introducing a $1500 CPU).

Finally, I should say I don't play nearly as many games these days. These days I need more and more pure CPU power (more cores). I really hope broadwell-e will work out, if not maybe even a nice 8 core (or more) Zen...

 

[2is]

Except for VR - where a Geforce GTX 970 is the minimum entry level GPU (for Oculus Rift) at least. PC Graphics companies at least are banking on the "VR Revolution" and 4K to maintain or possibly even stimulate demand for more high end graphics cards.

VR wouldn't even be classified as a niche market at this point. It's not even close to being significant enough to make a difference.