LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Eleven new 14nm processors make up the E7-8800 v4 and E7-4800 v4 families.
Read more.Eleven new 14nm processors make up the E7-8800 v4 and E7-4800 v4 families.
Nice - I wonder when we'll start seeing 6+ core consumer chips from intel (I refuse to consider a 4 core with hyperthreading an 8 core chip)?
Have you been on holiday the last few days? They released a 6, 8 and 10 core "consumer" CPUs <_<Originally Posted by cheesemp
@Nifl - I've not seen any news on Hexus which is where I get most of my PC news... I've just checked the last page of forum posts so I don't think i've missed anything (Also are these "consumer" chips or extreme i7's that no one can afford)
Extreme i7 are targeted at consumers with too much money and professionals. Normal consumers don't need more than 4 cores right now. And the new 6 core is also affordable with ~400 bucks.
Millennium (07-06-2016)
Enthusiasts!
Consumer chips are simply chips that are available to the consumer. Back in the peak of the Athlon/P4 wars Intel and AMD both slapped a $999 price tag on their highest end consumer processors. The high price tag didn't stop the processors being aimed at the consumer market.
i7 5820k is currently around £330, and the i7 6800k is around £370, so they're not even particularly expensive, historically speaking. Pricing is comfortably in line with Intel's 4 core/8 thread processor pricing (the i7 6700k is currently around £280), and they're readily available from a range of consumer outlets. Just because they're high-end parts (one might even say luxury) doesn't stop them also being consumer parts. In the same way that a Jaguar F-Pace is still a consumer SUV, even thought it's twice the price of a Kia Sportage...
Problem is that my next upgrade will not be for just right now. It will also be for the next 5-7 years of use (as per my Q9550), so I need a CPU to last as long as possible and additional cores may well help with that.
Out of curiosity, how much would it be to fully license a 24 core processor using the Microsoft per pair of cores licensing model?
I get what you're saying Nifl and Scaryjim however I'm still waiting for the jump - I went from 1 core to 4 cores a long time ago (Athlon? to core 2 quad) and I didn't spend a lot of money. I just don't see Intel moving to i5 > 4 cores any time soon. As for whether I need it - I'd argue yes. Games are only getting more and more multithreaded and I just want to see the next jump...
Presumably Intel are doing their numbers and have decided that 4 core/8 threads is enough for the time being. Core 2 was a bit of a freak step change in performance - it was such a big jump in performance that Intel beat out every existing CPU with its slowest release day Core 2; the quads ended up just being two dual cores glued together so manufacturing was relatively cheap; and it was all happening on larger nodes that gave better cost savings when you shifted to a new one (65nm - 45nm was, iirc, quite a big cost saving), and so it was easier to keep pushing prices downward.
None of that really applies any more - there's no real cost saving shifting to a new node, there's been no step change in CPU performance to shift the market expectation, and there's been no real competition to drive innovation. Most consumers don't need more than 4 fast threads, tbh, and certainly don't need as many as 12. I can't see a 6 core chip without HT being significantly faster than a quad with HT for many workloads. There's no demand, so there's no supply, and prices are high because it's a niche product. The people who will benefit from 6 core/12 threads know who they are, and know how much they're prepared to pay for it. Presumably enough of them are willing to pay the £500+ entry price for the mobo and CPU for Intel to consider it a market worth addressing.
it's very rare for a product to define the market. AMD did it with the Athlon 64 and X2, and Intel did it back to them with the Core 2, in both Duo and Quad forms. Since then, there's been no driver. Core 2 is still enough today for most people, outside of enthusiast gaming. I remember when the Core 2 Quads first came out, and people were debating back then whether it was worth getting a quad for gaming. That was almost ten years ago, and here we are, still not seeing much benefit in games beyond a quad core.
DX12 might change that, although it will depend on game developers using threading effectively, so I'm really not going to hold my breath for that one. Even if they do, a "mainstream" i7 still runs 8 fast threads, which is likely to end up being enough (given that current gen consoles run 8 threads too). And I believe the Zen rumours are for a block design where 4 cores are grouped together and share some cache, so it's questionable whether we'll see hex-core Zen CPUs, although we should see 8 core/16 thread SKUs. How much they'll cost is anyone's guess though: if they're performance competitive with the i7 5820k/i7 6800k then AMD may well price them appropriately...
Millennium (07-06-2016)
im looking at a higher cored cpu, simply because my 3570k isnt cutting it anymore. typing this my cpu is sat at 83% @ 4.84ghz. out of 32gb ram i have 10.9gb in use, 20gb cached, and 573mb free...
im not even doing anything intensive... highest disk usage is 5%..
recently i have been looking at getting an older dual socket board and picking up 2 of 'last' gen xeno's just for the extra cores to keep up.
the lack of processing power really shows when i open a game like the division. even civ5 will max my cpu out with the other programs i run.
so yes, intel need to get their ass in gear and start getting octo cores to the mass's rather than the extreme ranges. amd has been doing it for years, and if their new chips are any sort of match, the extra cores will be the clincher for my next upgrade
Those resource usage numbers don't look right for your situation - I'd look at sorting your OS and background processes before getting a new CPU!
Nothing wrong with enthusiasts... put in an order for a i7 6850K today =)
What virtuo said. If you've got that heavy usage going on just running web browsers there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your software set up. I can't remember the last time I saw double-digits usage as standard, even on my bay trail tablet. I know it's tempting to come up with reasons for a CPU upgrade, but that's not going to fix any underlying problems, and if those are genuinely your near-idle readings you've got some genuine underlying problems so fix...
Seem like you might be infected by some kind of malware or virus to have these numbers, but for sure something is very very wrong on your system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote