iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,590
- 21
- 44,965
-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
- Status
great article. 
i think intel made a lot of improvements in performance per watts dept. may be 'core 2' was the one which started it....
from the article...
i think intel made a lot of improvements in performance per watts dept. may be 'core 2' was the one which started it....
from the article...
with the rumor going around about bclk overclocking making a comeback with mainstream haswell, will it be possible to oc the pentiums and core i3s with the help of a z87 motherboard (should intel allow bclk oc)? i think it might 'bring back' quite a bit of performance in the value segment of haswell cpus.
how far back are you guys willing to go? phenom i x4 cpus or just from athlon iix4 to apus to visheras?
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
Athlon II is virtually comparable to Phenom I albeit at higher clock speeds. The PII X4 980 should compete relatively favourably here with the Pentiums and give the i3 some competition occasionally, but it's the upper echelon of the 2nd generation (can I say that?) FX series that will fare much better. The new 4350 and 6350 might be promising, though, especially the former which has 8MB of L3 cache again after the 4300 launched with only 4MB.
Weird.......... I am currently playing Crysis 3 with a Radeon 7870LE matched up with a E6750 Core 2 duo overclocked to 3.2 Ghz. I am running Full HD (1920 x 1080) at medium settings with MSAA x 2 and it's very much playable - no freezing during gameplay. I must admit though that the CPU is maxed out running close to or at 100% during gameplay which leaves me no room to do anything else like even copying files in Windows. I must point out though that both Origin (Crysis3) and Steam gobble up to 40% of my CPU cycles which really piss3s me off. If I could disable Origin and Steam while playing I could do more than gaming.
Exciting that I could easily double CPU performance with a basic mid range CPU today, but on the other hand over 5 years later I was kind of expecting more. I can't help but wonder what things would be like if all those extra transistors given by Moores Law were given to the CPU instead of the integrated GPU, and also if the architectures weren't focused so much on mobile.
But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly excited to go from a C2Q to a Haswell quad
But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly excited to go from a C2Q to a Haswell quad
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
What a fun article!
I work at a nonprofit that refurbishes old computers for students, low income families, and seniors, and I work with old equipment like this (and sometimes older) all of the time. While our customers are always thankful for the service we provide, many of them always feel like newer equipment would run a lot faster/smoother, and they never believe me when I say that it dosn't make much of a difference for things like web browsing and office work (the types of things these computers are expected to do).
The biggest changes in computing over the last 5 years has not been the CPU, but the support hardware. Moving from DDR2 to DDR3 made a big difference in the perceived 'snappy-ness' of computers (especially with systems using onboard graphics). Moving from HDDs to SSDs can make even an old pentium 4HT feel pretty modern because drive speed has been a major bottleneck since the dawn of the PC until now. The difference between the older (but capable) machines they are receiving, and newer computers is almost all in the support hardware. Take a Core2 series processor and pair it with an SSD, DDR3, and a decent GPU and the average person would never know the difference between 5 year old tech and brand new tech. It is only in the size of the hardware, the fans required to cool it, and the power it uses. The disparity in hardware size/power is so great that I fully expect cell phone released 2 years from now to be out greatest competition because modern phones are already almost as fast for day to day use (they just lack the KMV to make them productive). Our computers will still be cheaper, but as our customers are only concerned about up front prices I could see a $100 dock-able phone (with contract) becoming a major problem for us.
on another note;
My old work PC recently died, and so I replaced it with a G2020, 4GB of DDR3, a passively cooled GT610 (would have used onboard video except that I have 2 high res screens), and an SSD. The total cost was ~$275, and it runs so cool that I only have 3 fans in it (CPU, PSU, and case). The old system was a Core2Quad, with 2 HDDs, 2GB of ram, GT460 GPU, and had a total of 6 fans in it. It was loud, it would have been very expensive when it was new (~$800-1000), and it sucked down power like nobodys business. While that old rig (may it rest in peace) would have kicked my new rig's butt in games, my new rig runs circles around the old one for general productivity work (which is what I do at work... honest!).
It is just amazing to me that 5 years later we run on 1/2 the power (or less) with almost passive/silent cooling, and can pick it up for 1/3 the price. I imagine that in 5 more years time this trend will continue and we will run on even less power, run everything except for high end GPUs with passive cooling, and be able to purchase similarly performing equipment for another 1/3 to 1/4 of today's price.
I work at a nonprofit that refurbishes old computers for students, low income families, and seniors, and I work with old equipment like this (and sometimes older) all of the time. While our customers are always thankful for the service we provide, many of them always feel like newer equipment would run a lot faster/smoother, and they never believe me when I say that it dosn't make much of a difference for things like web browsing and office work (the types of things these computers are expected to do).
The biggest changes in computing over the last 5 years has not been the CPU, but the support hardware. Moving from DDR2 to DDR3 made a big difference in the perceived 'snappy-ness' of computers (especially with systems using onboard graphics). Moving from HDDs to SSDs can make even an old pentium 4HT feel pretty modern because drive speed has been a major bottleneck since the dawn of the PC until now. The difference between the older (but capable) machines they are receiving, and newer computers is almost all in the support hardware. Take a Core2 series processor and pair it with an SSD, DDR3, and a decent GPU and the average person would never know the difference between 5 year old tech and brand new tech. It is only in the size of the hardware, the fans required to cool it, and the power it uses. The disparity in hardware size/power is so great that I fully expect cell phone released 2 years from now to be out greatest competition because modern phones are already almost as fast for day to day use (they just lack the KMV to make them productive). Our computers will still be cheaper, but as our customers are only concerned about up front prices I could see a $100 dock-able phone (with contract) becoming a major problem for us.
on another note;
My old work PC recently died, and so I replaced it with a G2020, 4GB of DDR3, a passively cooled GT610 (would have used onboard video except that I have 2 high res screens), and an SSD. The total cost was ~$275, and it runs so cool that I only have 3 fans in it (CPU, PSU, and case). The old system was a Core2Quad, with 2 HDDs, 2GB of ram, GT460 GPU, and had a total of 6 fans in it. It was loud, it would have been very expensive when it was new (~$800-1000), and it sucked down power like nobodys business. While that old rig (may it rest in peace) would have kicked my new rig's butt in games, my new rig runs circles around the old one for general productivity work (which is what I do at work... honest!).
It is just amazing to me that 5 years later we run on 1/2 the power (or less) with almost passive/silent cooling, and can pick it up for 1/3 the price. I imagine that in 5 more years time this trend will continue and we will run on even less power, run everything except for high end GPUs with passive cooling, and be able to purchase similarly performing equipment for another 1/3 to 1/4 of today's price.
ingtar33
Glorious
- Dec 17, 2012
- 9,075
- 302
- 46,040
an old core2duo won't work with ddr3 ram
unlike amd, intel has no such comparable "hybrid" chipsets like AM3, which could fit an AM2+ cpu, and use either DDR2 or DDR3.
Its funny the two different camps after reading this article. one side says "wow, look at how faster cpus have gotten" while the other says "wow, look how good the old hardware runs". I actually fall into the 2nd camp, mostly because it seems incomprehensible to me, that a 6yo cpu would be on the same chart as a modern gaming cpu. You see the final charts, how the i5-3570k (quad core) is only double the speed (at the most) then the oldest dual core warhorses, and only 33% faster then the old overclocked quad cores?
to most people that's a shocking result.
It says that there has been almost no innovation from intel beyond power drain and physical chip size since the core2duo. Heck, i already know how the amd comparison will roll. Most AMD cpus will match up quite well with the overclocked quad core2duo... and people will be left scratching their head saying "why isn't amd better then a 6yo chip?"
the answer is simple
Intel made a tremendous breakthrough in chip design with the Pentium 4 M, which was the progenitor to the core2duo. AMD has been scrambling since to find a chip design to compete with it (and largely failing), and intel hasn't been able to find an architecture to replace it with. so has largely been forced to upgrade it in small steps ever since.
The lack of innovation in the cpu design field for the last 6 years is largely because no one has figured out how to do better then this family of chips.
unlike amd, intel has no such comparable "hybrid" chipsets like AM3, which could fit an AM2+ cpu, and use either DDR2 or DDR3.
Its funny the two different camps after reading this article. one side says "wow, look at how faster cpus have gotten" while the other says "wow, look how good the old hardware runs". I actually fall into the 2nd camp, mostly because it seems incomprehensible to me, that a 6yo cpu would be on the same chart as a modern gaming cpu. You see the final charts, how the i5-3570k (quad core) is only double the speed (at the most) then the oldest dual core warhorses, and only 33% faster then the old overclocked quad cores?
to most people that's a shocking result.
It says that there has been almost no innovation from intel beyond power drain and physical chip size since the core2duo. Heck, i already know how the amd comparison will roll. Most AMD cpus will match up quite well with the overclocked quad core2duo... and people will be left scratching their head saying "why isn't amd better then a 6yo chip?"
the answer is simple
Intel made a tremendous breakthrough in chip design with the Pentium 4 M, which was the progenitor to the core2duo. AMD has been scrambling since to find a chip design to compete with it (and largely failing), and intel hasn't been able to find an architecture to replace it with. so has largely been forced to upgrade it in small steps ever since.
The lack of innovation in the cpu design field for the last 6 years is largely because no one has figured out how to do better then this family of chips.
TheBigTroll
Illustrious
- Apr 15, 2012
- 14,099
- 1
- 42,965
[citation][nom]veroxious[/nom]Weird.......... I am currently playing Crysis 3 with a Radeon 7870LE matched up with a E6750 Core 2 duo overclocked to 3.2 Ghz. I am running Full HD (1920 x 1080) at medium settings with MSAA x 2 and it's very much playable - no freezing during gameplay. I must admit though that the CPU is maxed out running close to or at 100% during gameplay which leaves me no room to do anything else like even copying files in Windows. I must point out though that both Origin (Crysis3) and Steam gobble up to 40% of my CPU cycles which really piss3s me off. If I could disable Origin and Steam while playing I could do more than gaming.[/citation]
you can easily play ultra with a i5 3570k with that setup
you can easily play ultra with a i5 3570k with that setup
[citation][nom]TheBigTroll[/nom]you can easily play ultra with a i5 3570k with that setup[/citation]
You are misunderstanding me........ according to the benchmarks in this article Crysis 3 should be unplayable on my rig @ 1080p due to my E6750 CPU. But it is playable , very much so...
You are misunderstanding me........ according to the benchmarks in this article Crysis 3 should be unplayable on my rig @ 1080p due to my E6750 CPU. But it is playable , very much so...
TheBigTroll
Illustrious
- Apr 15, 2012
- 14,099
- 1
- 42,965
finder
Honorable
- Dec 1, 2012
- 28
- 0
- 10,530
british site looks much better http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,review-32682.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,review-32682.html[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]an old core2duo won't work with ddr3 ramunlike amd, intel has no such comparable "hybrid" chipsets like AM3, which could fit an AM2+ cpu, and use either DDR2 or DDR3.[/citation]
Actually you can use a Core 2 Duo with DDR3 - using a LGA775 motherboard with the G41 chipset. I have one at home running 4GB of Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3.
Actually you can use a Core 2 Duo with DDR3 - using a LGA775 motherboard with the G41 chipset. I have one at home running 4GB of Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3.
mayankleoboy1
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2010
- 2,497
- 0
- 19,810
That is still very arbitrary since newer technology will invariably have better perf/watt ratio than older technology albeit 5+ year old CPU's. Its also an invisible metric where the more pertinent one is while the C2Q are obviously weaker than the IB counterparts, they still offer copious amounts of performance for a few years yet.
Well, my 'little' QX9770 mildly overclocked to 3.35GHz is kind of represented by the Q9550, and doesn't fair too badly
Still, it's hampered by memory on the old 775 motherboard now, even though I've got an SSD on the SATA 3Gb/s interface. The graphics cards are nothing to write home about either.
It needs upgrading to something decent, but until Intel sort themselves out with whatever -E chips they might produce in future (is IB-E worth waiting for?) it can soldier on a while
Still, it's hampered by memory on the old 775 motherboard now, even though I've got an SSD on the SATA 3Gb/s interface. The graphics cards are nothing to write home about either.
It needs upgrading to something decent, but until Intel sort themselves out with whatever -E chips they might produce in future (is IB-E worth waiting for?) it can soldier on a while
warmon6
Splendid
- Jul 24, 2009
- 4,169
- 5
- 22,965
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]That is still very arbitrary since newer technology will invariably have better perf/watt ratio than older technology albeit 5+ year old CPU's. Its also an invisible metric where the more pertinent one is while the C2Q are obviously weaker than the IB counterparts, they still offer copious amounts of performance for a few years yet.[/citation]
This isn't always the case.
Going from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 many year's ago for example, (IMO) went south in that department (at least when P4's were first launched).
This isn't always the case.
Going from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 many year's ago for example, (IMO) went south in that department (at least when P4's were first launched).
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
Nice Paul, youve been busy it appears, Thanx for this article, as progress is best seen when directly compared to the past, now if there was a FX tested too 😉
It's interesting that even after half a decade, with Intel architectures clock speed and core count aren't *everything*, but they sure mean a lot. Cache makes a difference, but in anything that is well threaded physical cores still mean a lot. Makes me wish Intel didn't force people who don't need the integrated GPU to buy it, and instead used that die space for 2 more cores as a baseline.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Problem with installing Windows 7 updated to modern hardware
- Started by Klymins
- Replies: 3
-
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 74
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question is chromium integrated in ms Edge or does it have to be loaded- Latest: ex_bubblehead
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram