Do we really need better CPU at this time?

[mach]

For "we" I mean the majority of people. Linus rants a lot about how Intel don't have more cores for enthusiasts in recent years. 

I totally understand how enthusiasts and professionals can utilize better CPU in their workflows. 

Perhaps it's just me living in my own world but, are there seriously that many people who play games, and stream, and encode videos all the time?

Are there really that many people who edit videos, do 3D works and perform massive calculations daily?

 

To me, a normal dude who play games, the heaviest workload I frequently put on my computer would be like this:

1. A browser with 8-10 tabs opened and playing youtube videos

2. Another browser with an active download, sometimes with SFTP instead

3. An AAA game running fullscreen

4. Perhaps background tasks like antivirus scan (not likely)

And these won't push my i7-6700 to it's limit, not even close

Heck I won't even notice the difference from the Haswell quad core in my 4 years old laptop unless I run some benchmarks.

 

To my knowledge, what many people do on their computer are just browsing facebook, watching youtube videos and wandering on the net.

Even gamers should be satisfied with any modern quad-core CPU.

If that is true, then why Intel is so reluctant in releasing better CPU is totally reasonable. Because most people just don't need the power!

I know the above tasks would be benefited from faster CPU too. But I think to a normal user, spending the extra money on faster storage is always a better choice. Or GPU. Or peripherals.

 

On a tech forum I expect proportion of professionals would be much higher but think of the people around you. Do you think most of them need the CPU horsepower too? 

I'm curious because I doubt there're so many people needing the power that they are all excited with recent AMD/Intel releases. 

[TetraSky]

Most things don't even push my 875k to the limit... Only when you enter the realm of content creation that newer CPU start making sense. And a tiny bit for gaming, other than that?

I haven't been excited for a CPU release in a LONG time.

[Benasurus]

It's a bit of a catch 22 really. Developers are reluctant to develop software that can use multi-core architectures efficiently because the CPU market is stagnated at quad cores on the desktop and dual on mobile (laptops). Therefore there is little reason to purchase or want higher core count CPUs.

 

The problem is that to get more performance we have to add cores. We had the same problem in the 2000s where everyone thought we could just keep increasing clock speed but realised it wasn't possible so the industry moved to dual and then quad core CPUs and introduced hyperthreading/simultaneous multi-threading.

[Arcanekitten]

5 minutes ago, mach said:

For "we" I mean the majority of people. Linus rants a lot about how Intel don't have more cores for enthusiasts in recent years. 

I totally understand how enthusiasts and professionals can utilize better CPU in their workflows. 

Perhaps it's just me living in my own world but, are there seriously that many people who play games, and stream, and encode videos all the time?

Are there really that many people who edit videos, do 3D works and perform massive calculations daily?

 

To me, a normal dude who play games, the heaviest workload I frequently put on my computer would be like this:

1. A browser with 8-10 tabs opened and playing youtube videos

2. Another browser with an active download, sometimes with SFTP instead

3. An AAA game running fullscreen

4. Perhaps background tasks like antivirus scan (not likely)

And these won't push my i7-6700 to it's limit, not even close

Heck I won't even notice the difference from the Haswell quad core in my 4 years old laptop unless I run some benchmarks.

 

To my knowledge, what many people do on their computer are just browsing facebook, watching youtube videos and wandering on the net.

Even gamers should be satisfied with any modern quad-core CPU.

If that is true, then why Intel is so reluctant in releasing better CPU is totally reasonable. Because most people just don't need the power!

I know the above tasks would be benefited from faster CPU too. But I think to a normal user, spending the extra money on faster storage is always a better choice. Or GPU. Or peripherals.

 

On a tech forum I expect proportion of professionals would be much higher but think of the people around you. Do you think most of them need the CPU horsepower too? 

I'm curious because I doubt there're so many people needing the power that they are all excited with recent AMD/Intel releases. 

There is a difference between CPU generation's and FPS in games, which isn't large but after 3 generations the gap is large enough to justify the expense of a new CPU.

The thing at the moment is that most games use DX11 and games with DX12 aren't build from the ground with DX12 in mind and thus aren't optimized for it.

With DX12 we can expect large benefits for high core counts and are core counts more of a consideration for a gaming rig, not only Gigahertz.

[Principis]

4 minutes ago, mach said:

For "we" I mean the majority of people. Linus rants a lot about how Intel don't have more cores for enthusiasts in recent years. 

I totally understand how enthusiasts and professionals can utilize better CPU in their workflows. 

Perhaps it's just me living in my own world but, are there seriously that many people who play games, and stream, and encode videos all the time?

Are there really that many people who edit videos, do 3D works and perform massive calculations daily?

 

To me, a normal dude who play games, the heaviest workload I frequently put on my computer would be like this:

1. A browser with 8-10 tabs opened and playing youtube videos

2. Another browser with an active download, sometimes with SFTP instead

3. An AAA game running fullscreen

4. Perhaps background tasks like antivirus scan (not likely)

And these won't push my i7-6700 to it's limit, not even close

 

To my knowledge, what many people do on their computer are just browsing facebook, watching youtube videos and wandering on the net.

Even gamers should be satisfied with any modern quad-core CPU.

If that is true, then why Intel is so reluctant in releasing better CPU is totally reasonable. Because most people just don't need the power!

I know the above tasks would be benefited from faster CPU too. But I think to a normal user, spending the extra money on faster storage is always a better choice. Or GPU. Or peripherals.

 

On a tech forum I expect proportion of professionals would be much higher but think of the people around you. Do you think most of them need the CPU horsepower too? 

I'm curious because I doubt there're so many people needing the power that they are all excited with recent AMD/Intel releases. 

See it differently. Faster cpu's for enthusiasts means cheaper cpu's for the rest of the people.

 

I think that the cpus we have nowadays are not good enough for video editing and stuff like that. I have a 6700k and I often wish it would be faster...

[Enderman]

Typical "more cores is better" mentality.

It's not bad, makes technology progress faster and reduces the cost of lower power CPUs, as you can see with the ryzen 3 and 5 series.

Also good for creators/prosumers that want more cores for a lower price, because they can actually use all that.

 

I still think Intel is doing good by increasing core performance and reducing TDP rather than making consumer CPUs that are extremely high core counts.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Arcanekitten said:

There is a difference between CPU generation's and FPS in games, which isn't large but after 3 generations the gap is large enough to justify the expense of a new CPU.

The thing at the moment is that most games use DX11 and games with DX12 aren't build from the ground with DX12 in mind and thus aren't optimized for it.

With DX12 we can expect large benefits for high core counts and are core counts more of a consideration for a gaming rig, not only Gigahertz.

With DX12, you can expect high core counts to become unnecessary because 4-6 is more than enough.

 

 

[Benasurus]

7 minutes ago, Arcanekitten said:

There is a difference between CPU generation's and FPS in games, which isn't large but after 3 generations the gap is large enough to justify the expense of a new CPU.

The thing at the moment is that most games use DX11 and games with DX12 aren't build from the ground with DX12 in mind and thus aren't optimized for it.

With DX12 we can expect large benefits for high core counts and are core counts more of a consideration for a gaming rig, not only Gigahertz.

From the point of view of a game developer, if you look at the steam hardware survey, the vast majority of gamers are running quad core CPUs most of which have relatively high clock speeds as a result. Developing software that can scale properly on multiple cores is immensely difficult not only from a technical viewpoint but also in mindset. True parallelisation is a massive paradigm shift and ultimately you can only break down a task so much keeping in mind the synchronisation you have to do across cores with games due to their dynamic nature.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Benasurus
Mistyped word

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory.

[Brooksie359]

As a mechanical engineer who uses computer aided engineering programs that are optimized for multicore, I would say I can use more cores easily. I honestly think that it is much better to have more cores than you need than not having enough. I mean if dx 12 can use 6 cores really well than having more than 6 would still be good if you want to play dx 12 games and do other things too.

[Princess Luna]

My i7 7700 also rarely is being used at its full potential, but that's better than start feeling limited by it any how.

[mach]

6 minutes ago, Benasurus said:

It's a bit of a catch 22 really. Developers are reluctant to develop software that can use multi-core architectures efficiently because the CPU market is stagnated at quad cores on the desktop and dual on mobile (laptops). Therefore there is little reason to purchase or want higher core count CPUs.

 

The problem is that to get more performance we have to add cores. We had the same problem in the 2000s where everyone thought we could just keep increasing clock speed but realised it wasn't possible so the industry moved to dual and then quad core CPUs and introduced hyperthreading/simultaneous multi-threading.

Let's assume every software is fully optimized for multi-core. Is CPU performance a bottleneck in common users' usage? I always think the weak link is storage nowadays. 

3 minutes ago, Principis said:

See it differently. Faster cpu's for enthusiasts means cheaper cpu's for the rest of the people.

 

I think that the cpus we have nowadays are not good enough for video editing and stuff like that. I have a 6700k and I often wish it would be faster...

 

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Typical "more cores is better" mentality.

It's not bad, makes technology progress faster and reduces the cost of lower power CPUs, as you can see with the ryzen 3 and 5 series.

Also good for creators/prosumers that want more cores for a lower price, because they can actually use all that.

 

I still think Intel is doing good by increasing core performance and reducing TDP rather than making consumer CPUs that are extremely high core counts.

As a techie I sure welcome newer and better technology. I just feel that the demand for faster CPU is limited by what common users do. I agree it's a right move for Intel to refine consumer CPU. 

[z0rp]

The thing is that CPUs have barely jumped much since the 2600K or at least not as much when it hit.
 

What I want to see is more competition in the CPU space instead of Intel knee-jerk releasing things every time AMD might giving them competition.

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, z0rp said:

The thing is that CPUs have barely jumped much since the 2600K or at least not as much when it hit.
 

What I want to see is more competition in the CPU space instead of Intel knee-jerk releasing things every time AMD might giving them competition.

It has been a big improvement over the last 5 years.

Have you just not been paying attention or did you only get into the PC hobby 3 posts ago?

 

You can also see some other benchmarks from the 2600k to 4790k, unfortunately they didn't make any of 2600k vs 7700k, but obviously the difference is even bigger than 3770k to 7700k.

 

50+ fps is a VERY significant difference.

[z0rp]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Have you just not been paying attention or did you only get into the PC hobby 3 posts ago?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOtTEMn-RU

 

[mach]

1 minute ago, z0rp said:

The thing is that CPUs have barely jumped much since the 2600K or at least not as much when it hit.
 

What I want to see is more competition in the CPU space instead of Intel knee-jerk releasing things every time AMD might giving them competition.

We don't have the demand for power from the general public. I think that's the problem.

For each big iteration of software development (for example a new version of Windows), I see news like how ancient shit machine can run it etc. 

I will not be surprised CPU we have will still be sufficient for youtube watching and facebook browsing in 10 years from now. (ok maybe not 10 years but certainly a few)

I think what we need is software developers to forget about resource limitation but bring us the best computing experience, so even normal folks will need better hardware.

[bimmerman]

The fact I have used an i7-950 since new with zero noticeable performance loss vs newer hardware is a pretty good indication that no, you don't really need much CPU for generic gaming + ms office stuff. I upgraded to a 6 core xeon because honestly I was bored and had $60 and a couple hours to kill...and aside from having more threads appear in task manager there hasn't been an appreciable improvement in gaming or productivity. I may not get the same FPS a newer CPU would, but the games are enjoyable, so who cares?

 

I'm interested in the threadripper vs X299 stuff from a hardware point of view, but I still don't have a compelling reason to go spend $2k+ to upgrade the CPU and platform. I can upgrade the GPU for less money and get a noticeably better experience than upgrading CPU.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, z0rp said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOtTEMn-RU

 

You just proved yourself wrong again, just look at the benchmarks in that video, the 7700k is MUCH better than the 2600k in almost every benchmark.

 

Obviously in the games that are GPU bound there will be little difference between a 7700k and 2600k.

You do not compare CPUs by using GPu-limited tests, that's just stupid.

 

"oh well if you limit their performance, the 7700k and 2600k are the same!!1!!1!1 There is no reason to buy 7700k!"

 

[z0rp]

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

7700k is MUCH better than the 2600k in almost every benchmark.

 

After almost 8 years I should hope so.

 

You seem to have somehow managed to entirely miss the point that the difference isn't as significant as one might expect after all these years.

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, z0rp said:

 

After almost 8 years I should hope so.

 

You seem to have somehow managed to entirely miss the point that the difference isn't as significant as one might expect after all these years.

If 30%+ improvement (in stuff that is not GPU bound) is "not as significant as one might expect" then I have no idea where you got your magical expectations of massive improvement in CPU evolution.

 

It is certainly a significant improvement, and if you expected more then you must be delusional or something, or just really new to the PC industry.

[Principis]

48 minutes ago, mach said:

We don't have the demand for power from the general public. I think that's the problem.

For each big iteration of software development (for example a new version of Windows), I see news like how ancient shit machine can run it etc. 

I will not be surprised CPU we have will still be sufficient for youtube watching and facebook browsing in 10 years from now. (ok maybe not 10 years but certainly a few)

I think what we need is software developers to forget about resource limitation but bring us the best computing experience, so even normal folks will need better hardware.

Take a core 2 duo and tell me you can watch youtube decently...

 

[airdeano]

and enough EGO chokes another thread...

stay on topic and keep the confrontational comments out of these forums..

[asand1]

6 hours ago, Enderman said:

If 30%+ improvement (in stuff that is not GPU bound) is "not as significant as one might expect" then I have no idea where you got your magical expectations of massive improvement in CPU evolution.

 

It is certainly a significant improvement, and if you expected more then you must be delusional or something, or just really new to the PC industry.

In comparison, I wonder what the improvement between c2q and the i7 2600 was. I think the point was that real improvement comes slower than earlier CPU tech did. After 2600 there were no giant leaps.

[Guest]

I would say nothing is fast enough to not slow down workflow to something that's negligible, at least in what i've personally experienced. I want to try NVME speeds as they sound decent but haven't done so yet. More power please ...and at cheaper cost! 

[Ground]

2 hours ago, asand1 said:

In comparison, I wonder what the improvement between c2q and the i7 2600 was. I think the point was that real improvement comes slower than earlier CPU tech did. After 2600 there were no giant leaps.

 

I just have a cinebench result here, my Q9550 did 400 at 3.6GHz, the 2600 does around 600 at 3.4 GHz, the 2400 around 430 at 3.2 (last 2 scores were taken from HWBot results). If you want me to do so I can see about getting a couple benches in from my 1366 system(e5649 @ 4.2GHz, 969 in Cinebench), as my c2q isn't running anymore. I can't bench games though, don't have any new ones. But don't forget, these newer CPUs support newer instruction sets which gives them some benefits in some applications