6700k to 1700

[rans]

Hi,
is it worth the upgrade from i7 6700k to a 1700
right now i only have 24gb ddr4 with speed of 2100+mhz do i also need to replace this if i'm going with the 1700?

Thanks!

[emosun]

I would say no get something that doubles the speed of your current cpu at least.

[The Sloth]

what is your workload? 

[themctipers]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

I would say no get something that doubles the speed of your current cpu at least.

lol good luck waiting that long.. assuming you're talking about IPC

[rans]

I only play game and do some video/photoshop editing (but this is only part time not my real job). 
so probably not worth the upgrade base on your reply guys. Thanks!

[Mooshi]

Not really, dude. 

 

The only reason I went with Ryzen after having a 6700K was 1) My girlfriend's PC needed a replacement asap as it was failing 2) She games more than I do 3) The 7700k is a 6700 with crappy TIM so not worth the "upgrade" 4) It was nice actually having a choice.

 

Since you already have a 6700k and most likely not offloading it to someone else. Keep it till 2020 when something exciting happens again.

[emosun]

1 minute ago, themctipers said:

lol good luck waiting that long.. assuming you're talking about IPC

Whenever I upgrade I usually wait till I can double the speed of whatever it is I'm upgrading. To double up a 6700k you would use something like two e5 2670's which are pretty cheap these days. although two 2670's is more like 170% the speed as opposed to double but it's still a good upgrade over the maybe 20% ryzen would give. Plus you got all those cores to play with , like a discount thread ripper.

[JoostinOnline]

17 minutes ago, emosun said:

I would say no get something that doubles the speed of your current cpu at least.

So maybe 20 years, probably longer.   With the power wall reached, it's unlikely that CPU's will ever see big jumps in performance again.

[emosun]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

So maybe 20 years, probably longer.

are you kidding?

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, emosun said:

are you kidding?

Not at all.  We're seeing almost no performance improvements over the generations.  Maybe 10% better than the previous generation every couple of years.

[themctipers]

16 minutes ago, emosun said:

Whenever I upgrade I usually wait till I can double the speed of whatever it is I'm upgrading. To double up a 6700k you would use something like two e5 2670's which are pretty cheap these days. although two 2670's is more like 170% the speed as opposed to double but it's still a good upgrade over the maybe 20% ryzen would give. Plus you got all those cores to play with , like a discount thread ripper.

i assumed we don't count cores.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Not at all.  We're seeing almost no performance improvements over the generations.  Maybe 10% better than the previous generation every couple of years.

that's because intel is artificially doing nothing, since until now there was no competition.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Not at all.  We're seeing almost no performance improvements over the generations.  Maybe 10% better than the previous generation every couple of years.

BTW, 10% every year is enough to double in less than 7 years... so that 20 year number is wrong.

[emosun]

I literally just got done suggesting two 2670's which will pretty much be a 70-100% speed increase over a 6700k.

and the 2670 is a BUDGET option to double the speed. If price was no object we could double , triple , quadruple , even go 6 times the speed.

Obviously he has a budget so 2670s was the first thing that came to mind

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

that's because intel is artificially doing nothing, since until now there was no competition.

Debatable. Even if they had competition, I don't think it would have changed much.  Before the Power Wall was hit, it was just a matter of increasing the frequency for more performance.  As soon as that wasn't an option, improvements slowed way down.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Debatable. Even if they had competition, I don't think it would have changed much.  Before the Power Wall was hit, it was just a matter of increasing the frequency for more performance.  As soon as that wasn't an option, improvements slowed way down.

well, if programs become multithreaded to the point where programs can scale with infinite amount of cores, we should be able to keep improving for lots more years to come, until we hit a physical size limit.

[JoostinOnline]

8 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

BTW, 10% every year is enough to double in less than 7 years... so that 20 year number is wrong.

I didn't say every year.   It's been almost a decade since the first i7 was released, and the 7700k definitely isn't twice as powerful.

7 minutes ago, emosun said:

I literally just got done suggesting two 2670's which will pretty much be a 70-100% speed increase over a 6700k.

and the 2670 is a BUDGET option to double the speed. If price was no object we could double , triple , quadruple , even go 6 times the speed.

Obviously he has a budget so 2670s was the first thing that came to mind

If we're talking about going multiple CPU's, that changes things.  I thought you were talking about waiting for Intel/AMD to release a new CPU twice as powerful as the 7700K at an affordable price.

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

well, if programs become multithreaded to the point where programs can scale with infinite amount of cores, we should be able to keep improving for lots more years to come, until we hit a physical size limit.

That's more about program optimization though.  I'm speaking strictly about raw performance.  Like if you could get a CPU to 9-10GHz or something.

 

PS: I've written multi-threaded programs, and it's fucking hard.  Trying to keep everything in sync is a nightmare for debugging.  I'm sure game engines make it easier, but I understand why so few programs do it.

[emosun]

 

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

If we're talking about going multiple CPU's, that changes things

if it's cost effective and adds speed. then yeah , always

[RadiatingLight]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's more about program optimization though.  I'm speaking strictly about raw performance.  Like if you could get a CPU to 9-10GHz or something.

 

PS: I've written multi-threaded programs, and it's fucking hard.  Trying to keep everything in sync is a nightmare for debugging.  I'm sure game engines make it easier, but I understand why so few programs do it.

Yeah, we're kinda at a Ghz limit now, but who knows if that will ever be broken or not.

also, maybe someone will find a way to do reverse hyperthreading, where a CPU has 32 cores, and can combine them into what looks like 8 extremely powerful cores.

 

there are probably tons of new tricks we just haven't learned yet.