Why arent CPU scaling with die shrinks?

[ShintaiDK]

I base my fact on its been 10-12 years now and we are still at 4c/8t count for the modern user. it was a add 2 core count every 2-4 years starting in 2000 first with dual core to quad core then to hexacore and now all the sudden we are backing down and taking a step back to quad cores.we should be at a hexacore count already for standard user base.why is this thinking wrong?its my money and the consumers decide were the quality and price point should be at not the companies.if that was the case it would be $100 bucks for a cup of milk.

By 10-12 years you actually want to say 6-7 years.

The first dualcore was in 2005, not 2000.

Nothing is preventing you from buying a 8C/16T chip. And if you look on historical prices and account for inflation. You may find that 1000$ is quite cheap. CPUs have never been cheaper. But again, selective memory and just plain wrong statements to try and argument for something you feel entitled to?

Exactly, the consumers decide. Apparently you wasnt there at the meeting. The 99% crowd doesnt care about more than 4 cores. They care about performance/watt and integration.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Intel has been delivering the consistent (but low) IPC gains each gen since conroe.

They have not increased core count on mainstream since Core 2 quad.

With 14nm its time for a hex core option on the mainstream platform. Two broadwell cores + L3 (and I assume a very similar size for Skylake) are ~20-24 mm^2. With the GT2 Skylake die being <120 mm^2 (assuming they do not go crazy with IGP relative to broadwell) its easy enough to add a mainstream hex on the desktop. 14 nm is already low power enough that hex cores could scale to 45W laptop SKUs as well (with aggressive turbo).

Skylake may be +15% over haswell but is disappointing its still 4 cores.

Even AMD doesnt believe the mainstream needs more than 4 cores in 2016/2017 as seen with Zen.

 

[Hulk]

That has only scaled in core count, but not in price.




I do not like the idea of buying old tech, the 'high end' is too far behind for me to pay any attention to it anymore. We had a tick at 14nm, and soon we will have a tock. The idea of getting a bit better IPC and only 2 extra cores is not worth buying an entirely new mobo/ram/cpu....

I think the latest rumors are the broadwell highend will be out in 2016, that is after a skylake launch...

Ideally id like to drop a good $2000 or so and not think about a PC upgrade for another 3-4 years (other then GPU upgrades). I think that is part of my problem, the mainstream intel CPU are always so disappointing, while the highend are always so behind. I never feel like there is a good time to upgrade.



I have a 930, not 970. I do have a basic understanding of CPU archictuture, but your post more or less seems to be implying the reason why things are so expensive is so Intel can spend all that money on RND... I don't buy that.

I meant 930. Intel, like every business, does what they do to make profit. It's a balancing act for every business to decide how much to invest back into the company and how much to take out in the form of paychecks.

That being said, if anything Intel is probably having a harder time now than 5 years ago keeping their margins up as they are facing some serious ARM/Apple competition in the mobile space.

When another company comes along and starts making processors as well performing as Intel at 1/3 the cost we can take our complaints to Intel by buying that other product. But thus far it's vaporware.

 

[LTC8K6]

Are/were people buying the 6 and 8 core AMD mainstream processors over the 4 core Intel mainstream processors?

If they were, Intel would likely respond.

 

[BD231]

I got an i7 970, its 45nm, 4 cores @ 2.8Ghz for ~$400. I have wanted to upgrade for a while, but it seems each generation Intel disappoints, forcing me to wait another year/generation until I can upgrade

Just milkin the cash cow. $150 dollar cpus bought in 2011 are still neck and neck with a current $1,000 dollar CPU when overclocked for gaming and common tasks.

They're fully aware and don't care.

 

[Dave2150]

You can bet big money that the moment Zen releases, with a 8 core for the top mainstream option, Intel will follow suit and magically release an 6/8 core for the top end I7 mainstream socket, mark my words.

Of course this is dependant on Zen actually releasing on time and actually having decent, as in Haswell+ IPC. I'm not confident it will, so we'll likely have the same old Nehalem style Quad core for many years to come, with a huge IGPU wasting all the die space, with crappy adhesive on the IHS instead of solder, etc etc.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

Are/were people buying the 6 and 8 core AMD mainstream processors over the 4 core Intel mainstream processors?

If they were, Intel would likely respond.

In a nut shell, the lack there of any response to Intel's gains. So Intel plops down new CPU'S for us, hell not much software can use 4 cores. Maybe we should talk about that, IMHO.

 

[TheELF]

That is the million dollar question isnt it.. I think it comes down to greed myself.I think both Intel and AMD are so busy pocketing the cash and price gouging us that instead of putting cash back into R&D we get stuck with minor upgrades.

If intel (or anyone) could get 40% and upwards gains with every generation,then a whole lot more people would upgrade with every generation instead of still sporting 930 or 1st gen in general,and the companies would pocket a whole more cash,you think intel wouldn't want that?
If they could get the gains to make more sales they would do so,because bigger profit is always a good thing for companies.

 

[lord_emperor]

Are/were people buying the 6 and 8 core AMD mainstream processors over the 4 core Intel mainstream processors?

If they were, Intel would likely respond.

No, people are buying AMD 8-cores at price points where the Intel options are dual-core. The money saved can go toward improving other components.

As to the topic at hand, Intel feel no pressure to innovate right now and would rather put any cost savings into increasing profits. Until a competitor steps up and challenges them again.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Just milkin the cash cow. $150 dollar cpus bought in 2011 are still neck and neck with a current $1,000 dollar CPU when overclocked for gaming and common tasks.

They're fully aware and don't care.

+1

Thank you some one who knows what I am saying. Some of these rich guys on this forum are just trying to play dumb but im glad I am not the only one seeing the light!!

 

[ShintaiDK]

As to the topic at hand, Intel feel no pressure to innovate right now and would rather put any cost savings into increasing profits. Until a competitor steps up and challenges them again.

Utter BS. The biggest problem for Intel is people with Intel products not upgrading. And they spend countless billions on R&D to give people a reason to upgrade.

What did you imagine, static demand like they was selling water?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Just milkin the cash cow. $150 dollar cpus bought in 2011 are still neck and neck with a current $1,000 dollar CPU when overclocked for gaming and common tasks.

They're fully aware and don't care.

What did you buy in 2011 for 150$ that is equal in performance to a 1000$ CPU today? Because its not your 4.7Ghz 2550K.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

How about a Xeon X5680 thats from 2010 and still matches any CPU from today for the most part.they can be had for $150-$170

 

[Atreidin]

The original point is made by someone with no background in CPU design, who then makes an assumption on how things should be with no real reasoning behind it other than "things should improve linearly." That's just not how things happen in the real world. Rather than getting angry with reality it would be better to look into the limits imposed on engineering by physics.

 

[ShintaiDK]

How about a Xeon X5680 thats from 2010 and still matches any CPU from today for the most part.they can be had for $150-$170

You really think it matches todays CPUs? Its not exactly fast in todays standards. And it was 1600$ at release.

Look at the compare here:
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1260

 

[kawi6rr]

The way I see it, the best time to upgrade is when you need more performance...

This! Or hardware failure.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Hell yeah i think its fast its 6c/12t and can be overclocked easily to 4.5GHz if not more and can be ran in dual CPU configuration.
Any ways I was agreeing with BD231.

 

[Yuriman]

How about a Xeon X5680 thats from 2010 and still matches any CPU from today for the most part.they can be had for $150-$170

An X5680 did not cost $150 in 2010, more like $1,700. So, we have a $1,700 processor in 2010, when overclocked, matching a $300-400 Intel CPU today (at stock), not counting AVX throughput, at twice the power consumption loaded and 4x+ at idle.

 

[ShintaiDK]

An X5680 did not cost $150 in 2010, more like $1,700. So, we have a $1,700 processor in 2010, when overclocked, matching a $300-400 Intel CPU today (at stock), not counting AVX throughput, at twice the power consumption loaded and 4x+ at idle.

Funny thing is, no amount of OC will even make it remotely near in 1-4 threads if you compare to the stock 4790K.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1260

No OC will get it near a stock 5830K either in 1-6 threads.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1320

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I didnt say it costs $150-$170 back then I said it could be had now for that price and it was released in 2010 and matches or beats todays CPU when overclocked to 4.5Ghz or higher.Dont play dumb by twisting my words.

 

[ShintaiDK]

150-170$ used or new?

And you are wrong in your overclocking dreams.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

150-170$ used or new?

And you are wrong in your overclocking dreams.

Maybe you should check out the L5639 thread here on A/T forums they clearly show a Overclocked L55639 and X5650 overclocked matching a 5820K.
And I am dreaming?? Tell that to the 1000+ people who own those CPu's here in these forums. Brainless people like you I swear..

 

[ShintaiDK]

Maybe you should check out the L5639 thread here on A/T forums they clearly show a Overclocked L55639 and X5650 overclocked matching a 5820K.
And I am dreaming?? Tell that to the 1000+ people who own those CPu's here in these forums. Brainless people like you I swear..

I am sure you can see this link:
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/142?vs=1320

Also you can overclock the 5820K.

 

[Yuriman]

Well, sure, but you can drop a 4790K in a $50 motherboard with more features and connectivity than anything in 2010 had. How much does a motherboard + cooler cost for an X5680 that will allow it to reach (on average) 4790K performance? And consider that this motherboard is 5 years old and has no warranty.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

OK really dude use your brain I know you have one.. no one said it was a clock for clock comparison. it was said that a "Overclocked X5680 could match that of todays CPU" it wasn't meant overclock vs overclock.you need to get off that crack your smoke'n.
Beside I see you have never even heard of this cpu so dont knock it till you've tried it.
Which I am sure you never will cuase I am sure your rich and rich people dont know what its like to be frugal with a little bit of hard earned cash.