Poll - How much CPU power do you really need?

[Revolution 11]

For my needs, Core 2 Duo was enough if not for emulation. Dolphin alone pushes for faster CPUs. I hate to think what kind of performance/IPC/clockspeed a PS3 emulator would need.

 

[ozzy702]

Emulators, and games that aren't threaded for more than 1 or 2 cores are my main reasons for wanting more power. Encoding is sufficiently fast with my 3770k @ 4.3ghz.

 

[hawtdawg]

I went from a QX9300@ 3.3ghz to a 3770K@4.5 and for everyday stuff, I honestly don't think I've even noticed a difference.

It probably helped game performance, but since I was GPU limited, I can't really say for sure.

 

[tential]

the i7-4770k is overkill for what I use it for. Well, it's the fact that I don't even use it. I still use my laptop with an old penryn in it for just about everything. If I started using it a lot, it'd be for encoding video, but since x265 is almost here (pretty much here), and current hardware is no where close to being able to encode video at reasonable rates, it's a HUGE gap. I need a PC 10 times as fast to be able to reencode all my content to x265 or encode all my new content to that, but that's YEARS away. But everything else, works fine. x265 though would double my library of movies/tvshows. Then again, I calculated it out, and given new shows being released, there is no way humanly possible I could watch 25% of my library. But I like to have things and I like to have choices.

 

[seitur]

I am more starved for GPU compute, but I could use a bit more CPU as well.

Thing is it have to be affordable, local and cost-effective, so:

1. Going from Sandy to Haswell is not cost-effective.
2. Going for Intel Extreme series is not affordable and not cost-effective.
3. Cloud compute is not acceptable.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Nothing more annoying than a CPU limiting your FPS, choking out much more costly graphics processors.

I need more compute YESTERDAY!

But that's just in some areas in some games, others I'm perfectly fine.

I will continue to look forward to more performance, less power consumption (or much more performance at the same). As well as nice features like AMDs Zero Core (So nice to have a second GPU shut off when it's not needed instead of adding mucho wattage where no extra power was required. Also would love to see continued headway made in the area of desktop/idle/web browsing power consumption, specifically at this point GPUs and to a much greater extend, motherboards.

 

[d3m]

Phenom II 945 here.

Its gonna last long I can promise you that :>

 

[myocardia]

My current CPU is usually enough. However I'm a flight simmer, and FSX needs all the single-threaded performance you can throw at it. With some addons, people with SB's at 4.8+ GHz are getting < 20 FPS.

SP2 download: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8986
SP2 read me: http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/downloads/Pages/SP2-EN-ReadMe.aspx

When updated to SP2, FSX supports up to 256 threads: http://software.intel.com/en-us/art...-x-soars-to-new-heights-with-multi-threading/ although if you read it all, you'll find that for now, only up to 32 threads can be fully utilized. Your problem is all of the single-threaded addons you've been buying.

 

[skipsneeky2]

the i7-4770k is overkill for what I use it for.

If i wasn't gaming,something like a pentium g2120 would be years more then i would need and hell if this pentium 4 630 tower i am using didn't lag so much on youtube or on flash based games i wouldn't wanna kick it so bad or replace it for flash or youtube.

Possible movie and media computer?Pentium 4 needs to hit the road jack and that's a fact.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

I had a Pentium D 820 for 5 years, then within the last year, I have gone from a PD820 to a E2140 to a E4300 to a (yet to be complete) Haswell i5 4430

 

[JBT]

I'm fine for now. I play games every once in awhile but really CPU is never the limiter.

 

[JimmiG]

SP2 download: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=8986
SP2 read me: http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/downloads/Pages/SP2-EN-ReadMe.aspx

When updated to SP2, FSX supports up to 256 threads: http://software.intel.com/en-us/art...-x-soars-to-new-heights-with-multi-threading/ although if you read it all, you'll find that for now, only up to 32 threads can be fully utilized. Your problem is all of the single-threaded addons you've been buying.

It supports multiple threads, but they are only used for terrain compositing. Beyond 3-4 cores, there are no real-world improvements from adding more, even if the sim can theoretically spawn more threads. The performance of the first core where the main thread runs will still determine your overall frame rate.

The add-ons themselves are not separate processes, they live within the framework of the simulator, utilizing its graphics engine, physics, AI etc. There's no such thing as "single-threaded addons", they're just data files.

 

[gloom111]

Looks to me like better optimization in software would fix most of the power needs. I recently upgraded from a core 2 duo (E8400) to a 3770k and I can definitely tell the difference. I've yet to overclock it, but I'm not in a rush, taking my time and doing my research first. Besides, I have a one year warranty I'm in no rush to throw away.

Hopefully, the new generation of gaming consoles will help push developers to utilize more cores since both the new Xbox and PS4 will have 8 cores instead of the previous 3 cores in the 360. Devs were writing games for the weakest system for obvious reasons and ignoring the power of more powerful systems to get the largest possible audience for their games.

I vote more power because I find the lack of gains over the last decade to be underwhelming.

 

[Deders]

Hopefully, the new generation of gaming consoles will help push developers to utilize more cores since both the new Xbox and PS4 will have 8 cores instead of the previous 3 cores in the 360. Devs were writing games for the weakest system for obvious reasons and ignoring the power of more powerful systems to get the largest possible audience for their games.

Does anyone know if it's 8 actual cores or AMD marketing dual threaded integer cores paired up with a single floating point unit?

 

[gloom111]

Does anyone know if it's 8 actual cores or AMD marketing dual threaded integer cores paired up with a single floating point unit?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/...powering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash

Looks like four physical cores.

 

[jaqie]

to save on power and heat generation I went from my phenom II thuban x6 @3.5ghz to a q9650 @stock (for now) and the only real difference I am noticing is the lower RAM speeds impacting things like load times with very complex memory intensive things like minecraft with 80+ mods (tekkit launcher anyone?)... my system with OCZ agility 3 SSD there is a noticeably faster load time in some parts but slower in other parts between this c2q with hyperX ddr2-800 and the thuban (set to 4 core 3ghz) with hyperX ddr3-1600 (yes I ran it at 1600 and tight timings despite the thuban not officially supporting it, works fine with prime95 at that)... I honestly think that besides the core count, if I could find a decent deal on a ddr3 based lga775 mobo, this c2q would perform the same as the thuban on a per-core basis.

Why am I mentioning this in this thread? Because I also have a core2 duo which is similar, and the comparison in total cpu power between these three good examples is far less noticeable than the RAM speed with other components being fast and current. FYI my video card across these all is a gigabyte factory OC HD6850 1GB.

Through its' extreme inefficiency, heavily modded minecraft is actually a good way to check performance like this, because it tortures CPU speed and RAM throughput. I actually run some mods just for the multithreaded benefits over vanilla minecraft so it's far less single core dependent than vanilla testing would be in my personal case.

 

[myocardia]

My current CPU is usually enough. However I'm a flight simmer, and FSX needs all the single-threaded performance you can throw at it. With some addons, people with SB's at 4.8+ GHz are getting < 20 FPS.

It supports multiple threads, but they are only used for terrain compositing. Beyond 3-4 cores, there are no real-world improvements from adding more, even if the sim can theoretically spawn more threads.

Change your opinion often? I get 50-60 FPS in the mountains, and 30-35 flying low through New York City in FSX...with no addons. This is with my Q9650 @ 3.0. With it at 3.6Ghz, the framerates are ~20% higher. You were saying?

 

[sniffin]

All I do is university work and tv shows/movies. My notebooks A10 has easily kept me happy which I found surprising as my desktop had a 3770k before I sold it so I was used to that. Swapping in a Samsung 840 Pro was huge, I/O was the only thing that annoyed me. I'd be less happy with an i7 and a HDD.

I also have a netbook with a Temash A4 that I scored for $250 (what I actually take to lectures), I definitely notice slowdowns there (2 Jag cores @ 1GHz).

 

[BeaviSKY]

I'm still rockin' a Rana X3 with an R4870. Still hasn't disappointed me. Thinking about finding a 5870 or maybe 6950 cheap to get ready for RTW2. Not sure how bad the X3's gonna hold me up at that point.

Guess I could try the old core unlock if I get desperate.