The 8 Core CPU: Are they replacing 4 Cores as the standard? (Poll Inside)

[whm1974]

It's obvious 8 cores will be the new standard with them being only $250-300 already and with intel scrambling to try to produce a cheap 6 and 8 core "mainstream" processors

If I was building a mid-range system anytime soon, I would pick the i5-8400 at $180 over the Ryzen 1700 and i7-8700.

For a budget build I would go with the i3-8100.

 

[FIVR]

If I was building a mid-range system anytime soon, I would pick the i5-8400 at $180 over the Ryzen 1700 and i7-8700.

For a budget build I would go with the i3-8100.

Good for you. "Less is more" as they say in France

hon hon hon

 

[kawi6rr]

I don't give a f*ck what it costs. It's a Consumer-class product that's been available since 2014 and in fact was the #2 selling CPU at NewEgg (in revenue) for all of 2015. That seems pretty common to me.

https://blog.neweggbusiness.com/components/best-selling-cpus-of-2015/

Okay rant much! Don't take it so personal nobody's attacking Intel or you. Stay on topic or don't post.

8 core is not the new norm in my opinion but it probably will be in a few more years.

 

[kawi6rr]

If I was building a mid-range system anytime soon, I would pick the i5-8400 at $180 over the Ryzen 1700 and i7-8700.

For a budget build I would go with the i3-8100.

Agreed, If I were to build a new system today it would be the 1600x 6 core over the 8 core variants.

 

[whm1974]

Okay rant much! Don't take it so personal nobody's attacking Intel or you. Stay on topic or don't post.

8 core is not the new norm in my opinion but it probably will be in a few more years.

I think it will take longer then that. In fact given the huge numbers of dual core systems out there, it will be awhile before they are a replaced by quad cores.

 

[MajinCry]

Development doesn't focus on the numbers of cores. You are either developing for multi-core, or you are not.

Yeah-no. See every game made ever. Oblivion came out just when dual cores were becoming popular, and was programmed to offload a few things to a second core. It doesn't give a fuck about any more you got.

Skyrim: It was programmed to offload a few more things to two other cores; it won't do shit with any more than that.

Fallout 4: Programmed to use eight threads (albeit badly programmed because Bethesda). Does it like having eight cores? Yup.

Of course there is shit like making a pool of threads to do work, based on the thread count, but that's for niche, embarrassingly parallel work like rendering (e.g, emulators' software renderers), cloth physics, and sound processing.

 

[traderjay]

I've always wondered, with the proliferation of phones that can shoot high Megapixel photos and 4K videos, wouldn't the demand be there for additional cores and processing power? I guess most consumers simply don't download the content to their computer for post-processing?

 

[Donts00tmesanta]

If bf1 and battlefront 2 are an indication it'll eventually happen

 

[Donts00tmesanta]

Agreed, If I were to build a new system today it would be the 1600x 6 core over the 8 core variants.

I'd go 1600 just due to price more than cores

 

[TahoeDust]

He's probably just upset because until he read this thread, he thought his CPU was a special "enthusiast only" CPU.

lol...My chip is just the little guy of the platform. I know where I am in the pecking order.

 

[kawi6rr]

I'd go 1600 just due to price more than cores

I thought about that but I don't over clock anymore so I want the extra push.

 

[whm1974]

I think moonbogg is getting a bit silly claiming that 8c/16t is the new standard considering the Ryzen CPUs haven't been that long and Intel just recently released their mainstream 6 core processors.

Hell how many budget gamers built gaming systems around the low cost Pentium 4650/4600 CPUs this year?

 

[moonbogg]

I think moonbogg is getting a bit silly claiming that 8c/16t is the new standard considering the Ryzen CPUs haven't been that long and Intel just recently released their mainstream 6 core processors.

Hell how many budget gamers built gaming systems around the low cost Pentium 4650/4600 CPUs this year?

See post #6 and #33 regarding dual cores. The last time they were the standard was year 2008. We are discussing the proper new standard; the 8/16 CPU. Realize that I am not claiming that we are in the middle of the great new 8/16 era. In 4 or 5 years time we will then be in the middle of said spectacular era. We have just now entered it so the CPU's may seem like overkill at first, but they aren't. They are the standard.
Realize that we have just set foot in the new era as a person first enters a great lake. We are at the shoreline with water still below the knee. We have a few miles to go before reaching the terrifying deep water that this era has to offer.

 

[CHADBOGA]

See post #6 and #33 regarding dual cores. The last time they were the standard was year 2008. We are discussing the proper new standard; the 8/16 CPU. Realize that I am not claiming that we are in the middle of the great new 8/16 era. In 4 or 5 years time we will then be in the middle of said spectacular era. We have just now entered it so the CPU's may seem like overkill at first, but they aren't. They are the standard.
Realize that we have just set foot in the new era as a person first enters a great lake. We are at the shoreline with water still below the knee. We have a few miles to go before reaching the terrifying deep water that this era has to offer.

Clearly you are the prophet we have all been waiting on and so desperately need.

May you continue to shine and dazzle us all with your astonishing insights.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, dual-core is definitely dead right about now. Mostly for gaming, but also for web browsing, now that Firefox is catching up to Chrome and Edge in the multi-threading dept. I don't expect that any new machines sold will be dual-cores, unless the person buying them is penniless.

I switched out my G4400 dual-cores, for G4560 dual-core w/HT CPUs last year, and I haven't bought any true dual-cores since two years ago. I don't plan on buying any true dual-cores in the future, either.

It's i3 or 2C/4T Pentium at bare minimum, and mostly 4-core as a more realistic minimum.

 

[coercitiv]

I switched out my G4400 dual-cores, for G4560 dual-core w/HT CPUs last year, and I haven't bought any true dual-cores since two years ago. I don't plan on buying any true dual-cores in the future, either.

The 2c/4t CPU is a true dual-core, just like the 8c/16t is a true octa-core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I should have said "pure" dual-core, not "true" dual-core.

 

[coercitiv]

I should have said "pure" dual-core, not "true" dual-core.

I knew what you meant the first time, I'm just being a bit of a "hardware nazi".

In my defense it's important to help (others) differentiate between physical and logical cores, since less knowledgeable forum visitors will probably have a hard time understanding which is better: case in point the current Coffee Lake i5 with 6c/6t versus Kaby Lake i7 with 4c/8t.

 

[VirtualLarry]

All I know is that straight 4C CPUs, at least Intel, are very limiting. I heartily welcome the 8C mainstream revolution that AMD has ushered in.

 

[TheELF]

It has nothing to do with that. The OP said Intel will have an 8/16 mainstream answer to Ryzen's updated lineup, and of course its true. This is about recognizing that 4/8 chips are relics of the past and 8/16 is the new standard. We now have common and affordable 8/16 CPU's and Intel will soon catch up in that regard. 8700K is good, but looking back in only 12-18 months it will seem mid range. All of the common mainstream chips that people actually care about and talk about will be 8/16 and 8/8 chips. Anything less will be for budget builders who can get by with less and don't want to spend the $350 on a new and fast 8/16 Intel or AMD chip.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-core-i7-and-phenom-ii.2134911/#post-31068833

Though I am not saying I agree on those numbers that could be a possible outcome, however you should write it like that:

2011:
Bulldozer 4 module (8 core) vs. Sandy Bridge 4 core (8 threads): 1.15x in favor of Bulldozer
Bulldozer 4 module (8 core) vs. Sandy Bridge 6 core (12 threads): 1.15x in favor of Sandy Bridge
Bulldozer 6 module (12 core) vs. Sandy Bridge 6 core (12 threads): 1.15x in favor of Bulldozer
Bulldozer 8 module (16 core) vs. Sandy Bridge 8 core (16 threads): 1.15x in favor of Bulldozer

2012 (die shrink of Intel):
Bulldozer 8 module (16 core) vs. Sandy Bridge 12 core (24 threads): 1.15x in favor of Sandy Bridge

where die size of 4 module Bulldozer is roughly equal to 4 core Sandy Bridge (note: both are on 32 nm), though it actual depends on the exact amount of L3 cache of the part. With a die shrink in 2012 Intel could reduce the gap / improve die sizes and therefore increase core count.

So in 2011/2012 you will have really well performing chips at a low price range. The crown will go to Bulldozer FX which will be likly priced very high, since Intel will compete with lower prices (the lower Sandy Bridge prices by now already indicate that), more production capacity and selling power.

Intel will likly answer by adding more cores, so you can be sure to see at least a 8 core / 16 thread Sandy Bridge and with die shrink in 2012 a 12 core part doesn't seem unlikly.

All said for overall performance, since there will be lot of performance differences, e.g. chess programs which even drop with hyper threading or on the other side other programs which scale not very good because of bad programming. Therefore the above regarding all benchmark results taken together to an overall performance.

Still open and interesting will be average power dissipation. This could be another large gain for AMD if you take less modules (and therefore a bit less performance) but you gain a huge power saving. I mean Bulldozer can give 4 core stars performance at the power dissipation of a dual core.

With AMD Bulldozer you can choose between (nearly) double performance (over Phenom) or less than half the power (over Phenom) as of today.

AMD will have a window of ~1.5 years until Intel incorporates the "module technology" in their chips.

#13HW2050Plus, Jan 13, 2011
Last edited: Jan 13, 2011

Every...

single...

time...

The same arguments over and over...
Now it's 5 years later and people still have to make a argument against the dual cores...
because architectures and IPC improve all the time and today's dual cores are faster then yester-years quad's and quad's+Htt even. (For everyday usage and gaming, "nobody" cares about cinebench and co. )

Today even the highest GPUs get edged out by 4 real intel cores,anything more then that will give you better performance but in no way that much more that it would rectify people getting them considering the costs.

The new "standard" is the real quad i3 at about $120 with the 2c/4t pentiums remaining budget value kings for many years to come.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Not yet, but I can see it happening in 2-4 years. 8 cores will become what 4 cores is now and budget will be 4 cores. I have HTPC with SSD and i3-4170 (dual core w/hyperthreading) and it stutters for around 5-8 seconds upon waking up from sleep because windows pegs both cores with whatever it needs to do upon waking up.

 

[Topweasel]

How many thousands(lol) of Ryzen 8 core CPU's have been sold to date and how many PC's were shipped this year? 60 million? What do you think the average core count is in those PC's and then think to yourself what developers will design their code around. There are more AMD 8350's out there than Ryzen CPU's and in 5 years the people who bought a Pentium or i3 will most likely still be running circles around them.

if I were buying a PC today for basic usage(office/youtue) like most the people in the world I would take a 4core intel CPU over an 8core ryzen every time. Great example, go find someone who owns a Core2 6600 and Q6600 and run them on windows 10 side by side. You can't tell the difference unless you run a very specific niche task.

That is a joke right? I mean AMD had over 2 million in pre-orders at launch.

 

[Topweasel]

The same arguments over and over...
Now it's 5 years later and people still have to make a argument against the dual cores...
because architectures and IPC improve all the time and today's dual cores are faster then yester-years quad's and quad's+Htt even. (For everyday usage and gaming, "nobody" cares about cinebench and co. )

This isn't in a quest to replace 4 cores with 8 cores though I would love to see that happen. But 2 things. One only if you go back to Phenom and C2Q does a 2 core CPU beat a quad in certain work. But there is certainly enough parallelism is computing today to make using a 2c CPU unbearable and the same issue that made me get a Phenom I is why I don't like like a 2 core CPU as a general computing CPU (I say that while using a Surface 3 Pro and Latitude 12 (work Laptop) with 2c4t CPUs). It is sooooo easy to cripple the 2 core making the system unresponsive and its not always work. A simple driver issue or browser plugin or anything else can basically steal a core and make the system feel like we are back to 2004.

 

[traderjay]

From a market dynamics and economics perspective for consumer products, usually the lowest priced item is the mainstream standard or mass adopted product. So when 8C CPUs appears in the lowest priced systems, thats when it becomes the "standard".

There are exceptions to this though and the Iphone is one such example but its hard feat to pull off, hence why AAPL has the highest margins of all in consumer electronics products.

 

[moonbogg]

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-core-i7-and-phenom-ii.2134911/#post-31068833


Every...

single...

time...

The same arguments over and over...
Now it's 5 years later and people still have to make a argument against the dual cores...
because architectures and IPC improve all the time and today's dual cores are faster then yester-years quad's and quad's+Htt even. (For everyday usage and gaming, "nobody" cares about cinebench and co. )

Today even the highest GPUs get edged out by 4 real intel cores,anything more then that will give you better performance but in no way that much more that it would rectify people getting them considering the costs.

The new "standard" is the real quad i3 at about $120 with the 2c/4t pentiums remaining budget value kings for many years to come.

That looks like a 6 year old post showing two people argue about AMD vs Intel and who's got the better chip. I don't care about that and this thread is not about who has the better chip. This thread is also not about how much CPU power people need. The only thing this thread is about is the new and glorious 8/16 era that I believe we've entered. Things are also different this time with AMD's chips. What's the difference? They don't suck. That's the difference and when they released a $300 8/16 chip into the wild, they really let the genie out of the bottle and there's no way its going back in. Here's why:

Intel can be fine with 8700K for now, but they know AMD's 8/16 chips will get faster. When they get faster, Intel simply must come back with something in order to stay relevant. Their only choice, and I do mean its their only choice, is to release a fair priced 8/16 CPU to compete with the new Ryzen's around the corner.

So you see, it has nothing to do with what consumers need. It has nothing to do with who's got the better CPU. Things are different this time. Ryzen behaves like an i7 this time around. They are similar chips but Ryzen is just clock limited for now. They are in the race and they can't be ignored this time, not at all. Welcome to the new 8/16 era. Quads are the new dual core, hexes are a cheap middle ground for budget builds, and the only chip people will care about and consider relevant for gamers and enthusiast consumers, is the 8/16 CPU.

/end prophetic rant