End of the line for fast consumer CPU means what for gaming?

G

gongo

Regular
Reading the depressing BD reviews and ....knowing Intel will still go with quad mainstream CPU for another year at 77w TDP...SB-E costing a bitch and a rushed launch ...furthermore with ARM becoming more important...no news about another CELL like joint effort...i was thinking, is that it? We, consumers, do not need faster CPU? What happened to the more cores computing..? The AI recognition...gameplay physics and audio....the wonders of superfast CPU...dead?

I am still chillin with i7 920 overclocked to 4Ghz at 1.32vid...a cool 50% over stock...a legend if i do say so meself...sure a Sandy gives an average 15% increase in IPC perf at 4.5Ghz, Ivy probably another 10% at 4.8Ghz...but that is after 3 years...an eternity in computing...the price/perf does not generate a need to upgrade...and Intel is the one making the fastest CPU for us..:(
 
I was lamenting the lack of cpu progress as well especially since my business depends on tons of video rendering at home. Then I bought Vegas Pro 11 which uses the gpu heavily to render instead of the cpu and low and behold my render times with my 580gtx are now 3x to 4x faster than my overclocked 4.3ghz quad core sandy bridge cpu. So...if Intel wants to slack then hopefully gpgpu's can take over where they left off. I figure it this way, Intel didn't care much for low power computing applications and now Qualcomm and Arm eat their lunch there. Likewise if they don't want to keep raising the bar on general computing then maybe Nvidia or Amd will do it for them. Doesn't matter to me who aadvances computing power, but I'm sure someone will.
 
Welcome to the old new days where Intel was so superior that they released CPU upgrades designed to maximize profits instead of performance.

I am on a i7 920 as well, only @3.33 and the really isn´t anything where the CPU is bottleneck.

Maybe AMD´s bulldozer has a chance in gaming, my guess would be that a Console with a dedicated Bulldozer and a Strong GPU would be very powerfull. Sadly i am pretty sure that Intel would have no problem matching and outbidding AMD on both power,price and "heat" when it comes to CPU´s. AMD´s only hope is a seriously custom build "APU" as they call it. AMD could really use the money, and Intel could really use to be investigated as a monopoly :)
 
Well, in my opinion, BD might not be the fastest thing since sliced bread, but I still think it's VERY much worth the price they ask. I'd rather buy an 8 core with good overclocking and good support for future software (i.e. Windows 8 scheduler etc.) than a current Intel device. Plus, the price/ performance is just soo much better on AMD. I know I am an AMD "fanboy", but thing is... for nearly all applications, a Phenom 2 is fast enough. There's no need to go faster for most users. Even higher end users, as long as it isn't something like raytracing or video rendering.

And with OpenCL etc, as Joker said, the need for faster CPUs is even more diminished. GPUs very much lend themselves for stuff like raytracing and video rendering. So why spend money on a faster CPU when you can just put a faster GPU into your system (which is, incidentally, independent from your CPU socket, so you can put any one in your system).

As long as current games are mostly console ports on PC, there's no need to upgrade beyond current mid end hardware. My system (Phenom 2 X4 3.0Ghz, 6GB RAM and a 6870 1GB) runs any game flawlessly at 1080P, and a lot of them even very well in 3D. Some games run like ass (Assassin's Creed 2) whilst not even remotely maxing out the hardware (at least GPU-Z etc. say so). There are some notable exceptions, but these are far and in between.

I don't think Intel is willing to go with consoles again. Or rather that one of the three is willing to go with Intel. Their markup on consumer hardware is a lot bigger in ALL markets than what they could get on consoles. And I don't think their fabs are idling around, either. So why do it. AMD on the other hand could raise their productivity by a lot. Their general mark up is a lot lower than Intels and they don't own their own fabs anymore either. AMDs CPUs are quite hot though.
 
TheWretched said:
I'd rather buy an 8 core with good overclocking and good support for future software (i.e. Windows 8 scheduler etc.) than a current Intel device.
Click to expand...
Define "good overclocking". Most i5/i7's go to 4.5GHz on air and that seems to be about the same place where most FX'es end up. Only differences are that FX'es consume a TON more energy and still have crappy IPC.

Also don't expect miracles from win8. It will only help when the software isn't using all 8 cores. If it does there will be no difference with what there is today.
 
PA1710321.jpg

PA171027.jpg

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/power-consumption-fx-8150-v-i5-2500k-v-i7-2600k/

(not) pretty damning for BD...
wrt GPU acceleration...afaik ain't some things just work better with CPU...like AI and gameplay physics...non of those fancy physX eyecandy....can something like a i5 Sandy class CPU be enough for next gen gaming physics?
 
hoho said:
Define "good overclocking". Most i5/i7's go to 4.5GHz on air and that seems to be about the same place where most FX'es end up. Only differences are that FX'es consume a TON more energy and still have crappy IPC.

Also don't expect miracles from win8. It will only help when the software isn't using all 8 cores. If it does there will be no difference with what there is today.
Click to expand...

Yeah right... is that also the reason why BD is a LOT faster in Integer Performance, too? And I prefer 8 real cores to 4 hyperthreaded ones. At least in theory (in a console) they should be a lot faster when maxed out.
 
At least in theory (in a console) they should be a lot faster when maxed out.
Click to expand...

Well, it's nice if you have some really heavy threads not fighting over execution, but ultimately, they'll have die size/manufacturing costs considerations. SMT is a cheap addition, so even if you had 8 real cores, they might try to make it 16-threaded anyway.
 
Not sure this thread belongs here so I may move it unless it takes a console turn. For consoles, more CPU == better. However, for personal computing, apart from a few high-end productivity requirements like HD video editing, there's really no need for faster CPUs. There's no real use for the existing performance. Hence the market for CPU advancement is high-end users, which means asking top dollar. Without some tech requirement to drive the need for faster CPUs, there'll be no development there. And with GPGPU taking up the slack, there'll be less need for high performance CPUs as work will be shifted over to the GPU. Furthermore computing is shifting away from main PCs and onto more convenient devices where power use is more important. We're actually needing less powerful CPUs on average for everyday functions.

So basically, I say yes, this is it! Back when I was studying Comp Sci, the lecturers spoke of the Wintel cartel, with people encouraged to buy better performing processors mostly because Windows was designed to run slowly on their existing hardware. Now the OS is 'fast enough', there's no reason to upgrade there. Although thankfully Windows still manages to degenerate into treacle and require complete reinstalls. I saw a Vista laptop the other day that literally takes 5 minutes to load up IE.

In the console space, better CPUs could be put to use. If they are relying on the existing CPU companies roadmaps though, it's hard to see where that'll come from. It'll need a custom part, and something daring. Is anyone really going to take such a risk? I would only expect such a move from Kutaragi who's no longer at the reins. I can't see MS, Nintendo, or a more conservative Sony, wanting a Cell-type processor, or monster Larrabee, or 16-core ARM, or anything deviating from the most affordable solutions.
 
AlStrong said:
Well, it's nice if you have some really heavy threads not fighting over execution, but ultimately, they'll have die size/manufacturing costs considerations. SMT is a cheap addition, so even if you had 8 real cores, they might try to make it 16-threaded anyway.
Click to expand...

True. AMD has yet to release any SMT hardware. I am not sure if they've ever tried to do something like that at all.

From what I've read about BD is that AMD sort of made a 4 core float CPU with 8 integer cores. At least that's how I interpret it.
 
Well I always thought (at least in recent times) AMD should position themselves as the gaming alternative, and even engineer their CPU's to be better at gaming at the expense of some other general purpose things. I think that would serve them incredibly well.

Instead with BD, they seem to have actually taken if anything, the exact opposite tack. BD is engineered in such a way it's pretty terrible for gaming. It's really disappointing.

Poking around the other day, I actually found an example of a chip that really excels at gaming compared to everything else (for the price). Of all things it's the Core i3-2100. It's a dual core, 3.1 ghz, with hyperthreading. For about $125 it smokes the Phenom II X4's, and sometimes nearly hangs well with the i5-2500 and 2600, in gaming. It's less effective in general purpose stuff.

In a commentary on how sad things are for AMD, in most gaming benchmarks it beats the 6 core Phenom II X6.

It has a few fly's in the ointment though, Intel motherboards are priced well higher than AMD, reducing it's cost effectiveness for a cheap gaming PC, and it's locked overclocking wise, no overclocking.

I dont know, to say something about consoles, maybe such a design (beefy dual core OOE with hyperthreading) would work well in a console. Oh and keeping with the console thing, it's really low on power consumption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am still impressed how fast my i3 in my laptop is, even at its low 2.13Ghz. For the stuff I do for University (working on big vector datasets), my desktop is faster, given it has 3Ghz per core and it's only slightly threaded. It still comes quite close to the performance of the desktop part, which has about 3 times the power envelope.

Thing is, what Ranger is also saying, is that it's not just the cost for the CPU that is higher with Intel. The mainboard prices are quite a bit more expensive with them, too. I was happy that I could keep my AM2 board with an updated BIOS (thank god ASUS updated it to support even the 90Watt AM3 quadcores).

My question is how far AMD can push the "fusion" line. The current ones with the 66xx line GPUs are about as fast as the one in my laptop, maybe a bit faster. Temperatures will inevitably be a problem in the long run, but for mid range devices, you won't need a dedicated GPU anymore for gaming. I'd go as far and say that the current systems are more capable than the consoles.

Also, I'd love to see OpenCL become more accessible for general programmers like me. I can program simple OpenGL programs with ease using FreeGlut or Qt, but after reading some tutorials of implementing a simple Sobel Operator in OpenCL, the added work for the programmer is quite huge, in my opinion.
 
Rangers said:
Well I always thought (at least in recent times) AMD should position themselves as the gaming alternative, and even engineer their CPU's to be better at gaming at the expense of some other general purpose things. I think that would serve them incredibly well.

Instead with BD, they seem to have actually taken if anything, the exact opposite tack. BD is engineered in such a way it's pretty terrible for gaming. It's really disappointing.

Poking around the other day, I actually found an example of a chip that really excels at gaming compared to everything else (for the price). Of all things it's the Core i3-2100. It's a dual core, 3.1 ghz, with hyperthreading. For about $125 it smokes the Phenom II X4's, and sometimes nearly hangs well with the i5-2500 and 2600, in gaming. It's less effective in general purpose stuff.

In a commentary on how sad things are for AMD, in most gaming benchmarks it beats the 6 core Phenom II X6.

It has a few fly's in the ointment though, Intel motherboards are priced well higher than AMD, reducing it's cost effectiveness for a cheap gaming PC, and it's locked overclocking wise, no overclocking.

I dont know, to say something about consoles, maybe such a design (beefy dual core OOE with hyperthreading) would work well in a console. Oh and keeping with the console thing, it's really low on power consumption.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, is AMD at the competitive point where they'd be better off going in their own direction and trying to carve out a niche instead of head to head with Intel? I'd say not only the cpu but the whole package of cpu, gpu, and mobo. Sort of a PC as a console approach. They may find that this niche is much larger than anticipated esp. with those who don't want to go the full build/rebuild approach or with those who switch out their mobo as a matter of course in a rebuild anyhow. I'd say they'd need to up their dev relations to at least Nvidia levels to get them to take full advantage of the architecture but then what's their choice now?
 
You mean like their Fusion effort they've been working on the past few years?
 
If it´s a x86 that goes into the next gen consoles AMD only has 2 advantages. Price and the possibility of an integrated GPU. They lack power and heat advantages, they are so much behind Intel it´s almost a shame.

And if anyone thinks that the current CPU´s that Intel is selling is in anyway the best and cheapest they could offer right now then they are wrong. Intel could, if needed produce faster CPU´s without a problem, however, they just produce what is needed and maximize profit.

Considering that intel is already planning a 35W quad-core Core i7 with ivy bridge and they could reduce that since the graphics part wont be needed they really look strong.
 
Yes, that's the point. Intel doesn't NEED to offer any console CPUs. Their fabs are not idling, as I said. They are in a position where they can raise prices, because their CPUs are that good. Microsoft made that mistake with the first XBox and look how that turned out. NONE of the three will use Intel as their CPU maker and even if Apple ever did enter the console space, it would most likely be an ARM equipped device.
 
BRiT said:
You mean like their Fusion effort they've been working on the past few years?
Click to expand...

That could be one iteration, but that's a soc and I was thinking more of a mobo already setup with a custom-ish cpu, a higher end gpu, and a high speed (gddr5 or xdr2) uma + extended dimm channels. This isn't revolutionary as you already have mobo's with igp's, but that isn't going after the gamer market or even the general market who wants a high end PC.

The problem with soc's is there's too much compromise and to continue in a componentized direction is a sure way to continue to get your brains beaten in by Intel. A 3/4 type system design would play better to their overall company strengths and leave Intel in a scramble to match (if they'd even bother to a first).

In the end, as 3D packaging comes online in a few yrs, things will inevitably go this way anyhow so why not move to the forefront in this market?
 
Rangers said:
Poking around the other day, I actually found an example of a chip that really excels at gaming compared to everything else (for the price). Of all things it's the Core i3-2100. It's a dual core, 3.1 ghz, with hyperthreading. For about $125 it smokes the Phenom II X4's, and sometimes nearly hangs well with the i5-2500 and 2600, in gaming.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Hyperthreading brings excellent gaming performance gains for the dual core Intel chips, and is a very power efficient way to boost performance. Lately I have been really interested in the new Samsung Series 7 Slate, as it has a dual core Sandy Bridge i5 2467M with hyperthreading (4 threads) inside it. The CPU has a rather slow 1.6 GHz base clock, but turbos up to 2.3 GHz. It's easily good enough for all console ports. The integrated Sandy Bridge HD 3000 GPU isn't exactly a top performer, but it isn't that far behind the consoles either... And the other hardware components aren't that bad either (1366x768 screen, 4 GB of memory, 128 GB SSD, 7 hour battery life).

Intel will release Ivy Bridge early next year. It will have 30% more GPU performance and an even lower power consumption. So we can expect that Windows 8 launch will bring many tablets and ultraportables to the market that are more powerful gaming devices than current consoles. I doubt the next gen Bobcats will be enough to stop Intel's domination, and unfortunately it seems that Trinity will not be able to scale down to tablets and ultraportables (there's no Llanos either at 11" and under, and AMD isn't claiming huge power improvements).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
b7974df0-d6f2-45aa-811a-ba593c8a58f3.jpg


Embarrassing....oh well idk how efficient Sandy Bridge architecture is...a reason to upgrade from Nehalem.. and who is to say why Intel cannot make a powerful and cool console cpu?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top