Intel's "Cannonlake" delayed, "Kaby Lake" coming next year

[AlwaysFSX]

sure ... my "epeen" is too small.

how much do you get paid as Intel warrior?

 

people spending 100s of dollar to get 0.1GHz OC more out of their CPU wasting energy are totally tolerated on this forum, but I am the one with the small "epeen"

The fuck are you going on about?

 

But could you please be so kind and tell me what a "typical consumer" does (other than the activities listed below) where a quad core is needed and a hexa-core would not be better?

 

- web browsing

- office work

- watching movies

- listening to music

- games

It's already been explained to you why having more than four cores is going to benefit someone but okay, continue your ignorance.

[MrSuperb]

It's already been explained to you why having more than four cores is going to benefit someone but okay, continue your ignorance.

no it hasn't or am I blind?

show me a scenario where the "average consumer" needs more than 2 cores ...

then tell me why 3-4 cores are needed, but 2 extra cores (i.e. 6) wouldn't benefit the "average consumer" at all.

[AlwaysFSX]

no it hasn't or am I blind?

show me a scenario where the "average consumer" needs more than 2 cores ...

then tell me why 3-4 cores are needed, but 2 extra cores (i.e. 6) wouldn't benefit the "average consumer" at all.

I guess the paragraphs of software not being threaded for more than four cores is a few reading levels too high?

[MrSuperb]

I guess the paragraphs of software not being threaded for more than four cores is a few reading levels too high?

you mean patrickjp93 talking out of his ass?

or the fact that software either can be multithreaded and then most likely benefit from 4 OR MORE cores or it isn't and then even a dual core would be enough.

name a software that is designed to run on 3-4 cores, but doesn't benefit from 5-6 cores ...

[AlwaysFSX]

you mean patrickjp93 talking out of his ass?

or the fact that software either can be multithreaded and then most likely benefit from 4 OR MORE cores or it isn't and then even a dual core would be enough.

You have no idea how the OS balances loads and the fact that most software is threaded for only one or two cores.

[MrSuperb]

You have no idea how the OS balances loads and the fact that most software is threaded for only one or two cores.

 

and you are talking a lot of bullshit, instead of answering my questions/requests.

[AlwaysFSX]

and you are talking a lot of bullshit, instead of answering my questions/requests.

It's been explained, if you want to continue being ignorant then be my guest. You're not here to be coddled and have everything sugar coated so you like it.

[bomerr]

If you want 6 cores, you can always get 5820K. You will need DDR4 and new mobo for Skylake or Kabylake nonetheless. The cost of a new system is compatible between mainstream i7 and extreme 5820K. You get more PCIe lanes as well with 5820K. Unless you expect Intel to have 6 cores for i5 and i3 as well.

Well the sooner 6 cores become the norm the sooner all games support 6 cores. 

[Deli]

no it hasn't or am I blind?

show me a scenario where the "average consumer" needs more than 2 cores ...

then tell me why 3-4 cores are needed, but 2 extra cores (i.e. 6) wouldn't benefit the "average consumer" at all.

Someone who multitask a lot will benefit with more than 2 cores. 

 

6 cores CPU has a higher TDP. A cheap stock Intel cooler simply will not be enough. Either Intel includes a beefier cooler, that increase price. Or consumer has to buy separate aftermarket cooler. I'm not sure average consumers want it. 

[Bouzoo]

Well the sooner 6 cores become the norm the sooner all games support 6 cores. 

That's not how it works. I suppose you want to say that 4 cores are the norm nowadays and still most games don't use them all.

[AlwaysFSX]

Well the sooner 6 cores become the norm the sooner all games support 6 cores. 

4 cores has been the norm for quite a long time and very few things support threading on all of them at the same time.

[bomerr]

That's not how it works. I suppose you want to say that 4 cores are the norm nowadays and still most games don't use them all.

really? I'm pretty sure most new games run like crap nowadays with only 2 cores. 

[MrSuperb]

4 cores has been the norm for quite a long time and very few things support threading on all of them at the same time.

 

more bullshit ...

not true at all. most cpus are still dual cores ....

 

6 cores CPU has a higher TDP. A cheap stock Intel cooler simply will not be enough. Either Intel includes a beefier cooler, that increase price. Or consumer has to buy separate aftermarket cooler. I'm not sure average consumers want it.

 

there is no need for a higher TDP at all.

[AlwaysFSX]

more bullshit ...

not true at all. most cpus are still dual cores ...

Hah, okay then, sure.  :rolleyes:

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

more bullshit ...

not true at all. most cpus are still dual cores ....

[MrSuperb]

Hah, okay then, sure.  :rolleyes:

you really want to argue about that?

and I'd bet some money that in the non-gamer space the amount of single and dual core machines is much higher.

[AlwaysFSX]

you really want to argue about that?

and I'd bet some money that in the non-gamer space the amount of single and dual core machines is much higher.

I'll repeat what I said if you want me to.

[MrSuperb]

I'll repeat what I said if you want me to.

please do ... I think your post count is to low anyway.

so 4 cores have been the norm for how long?

[MageTank]

you mean patrickjp93 talking out of his ass?

or the fact that software either can be multithreaded and then most likely benefit from 4 OR MORE cores or it isn't and then even a dual core would be enough.

name a software that is designed to run on 3-4 cores, but doesn't benefit from 5-6 cores ...

No, he meant me when i specifically named compression and encryption being the only two semi-consumer related tasks that would benefit from more than 4 cores. Aside from those very two specific tasks, more than 4 cores means absolutely nothing. Since you keep coming back for more, asking the same questions i already answered, ill leave no doubt this time.

 

You yourself have flip flopped back and forth, and even answered your own silly questions several times, so ill use your answer again. More than 2 cores is required for the latest AAA gaming. That is where a quad core brings the most benefit. Dual cores are nice for consumers because they can do the other four tasks you mentioned at the same time. Most applications are designed to handle 1-2 threads, and maybe 1-4 threads depending on the application. Beyond that, its just insanely uncommon. The few exceptions being compression software, encryption and rendering. You also left out streaming as a pro for 4 cores, because the average gamer tends to stream his games as he plays these days. 

 

You are so keen on demanding people answer your questions but you never did answer mine. I asked long ago where you saw the performance charts of Skylake. You accuse Patrick of talking out of his ass, yet you are the only one that has failed to provide proof of his claims. How about you practice what you preach before you start making demands of others? 

[AlwaysFSX]

please do ... I think your post count is to low anyway.

so 4 cores have been the norm for how long?

Yes, let's start with the attacks because you don't have an argument.  :rolleyes: Four cores has been the norm for quite a while.

[Deli]

please do ... I think your post count is to low anyway.

so 4 cores have been the norm for how long?

norm =/= majority

[Bouzoo]

more bullshit ...

not true at all. most cpus are still dual cores ....

norm!=being used the most

1080p has been the norm for quite some time and most people I know still don't have 1080p monitors.

Also let's discuss 1 thing, the word norm. The norm for what? Gaming? Browsing? Using MS Office? The norm for gaming is 4 cores, no discussion there. The norm for everything else? What does everything else mean? If you're browsing or doing office work, you're good with 2 cores. Video editing? Not into that so can't really comment, but we all know any person who's serious about that is going after 6 cores, even though most don't have the money so go after 4 core i7.

Yada yada yada, this discussion is pointless. Why? Because you want facts and sources, still you haven't provided one for a single claim.

 

name a software that is designed to run on 3-4 cores, but doesn't benefit from 5-6 cores ... 

 

 

You're welcome. Very few games use 5-6 "cores".

 

really? I'm pretty sure most new games run like crap nowadays with only 2 cores. 

Okay, first things first, games use threads, not cores, made a typo earlier. Secondly, most games use 2-4 threads which is not the same as 2-4 cores, I'm sure you know that. New games, or better to say AAA titles are known to use more threads, but there are not many of them.

Just remembered that MMO's are supposedly quite CPU hungry

Edited June 25, 2015 by Bouzoo

[bomerr]

 

Okay, first things first, games use threads, not cores, made a typo earlier. Secondly, most games use 2-4 threads which is not the same as 2-4 cores, I'm sure you know that. New games, or better to say AAA titles are known to use more threads, but there are not many of them.

logical threads ain't as good as real cores tho. 

[MageTank]

~wall of truth~

 

Thanks for providing that video, i had forgotten that it even existed. It is a great way of showing that throwing more cores at a problem is not a solution.

 

On your last note, the only latest games i can think of that are still very single threaded would be MMO's, and even those are still able to benefit from a dual core. I can't find a single person that would play an MMO without running some sort of VoIP software, or listening to music at the same time. Hell, when i play MMO's i tend to do several things at the same time because it keeps my mind off the chores i am probably doing in game.

 

That being said, MMO's cater to the lowest common denominator when it comes to hardware, because being able to reach a wider audience means potentially making more money off of the cash shop. 

[Bouzoo]

logical threads ain't as good as real cores tho. 

Indeed, but neither can they be compared as such since they are not the same thing. Physical core is physically on your CPU, logical cores are not. You can have 1 or more logical cores on the same physical core and they share resources on that core, so having 1 physical core with 100 logical cores (not that you can) wouldn't mean it's necessarily better that 2 physical with 2 logical.