Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
The REAL question being asked here is: "When Can I have 6 cores for the prices of 4?"
Everyone making a big deal that "mainstream" Haswell will still only have 4 cores. When 6 core CPUs have been available since Westmere. If you want 6 cores, you have to pay for 6 cores. If you dont want to spend the money, dont come here and moan about it.
Lets do some math (based on Newegg):
3770K = $349, which is $87 per core.
3930K = $599, which is $100 per core. But for the little extra cost, you are getting more PCI-e lanes, double RAM bandwidth and more L3$ per core.
Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with that pricing if you ask me.
Haswell will follow the SB/IB models. 99% of computer users are mainstream and do not need more than a 3770K.
Although the Core i7-3820 does enjoy its high points against Gulftown and the Sandy Bridge-based Core i7-2600K, its pricey platform, locked multiplier, and quad-channel memory requirement don’t seem to deliver any more value than a Core i7-2600K on an inexpensive Z68-based board—and that platform gets you Quick Sync support.
Interestingly, our -3820 didn’t want to run at 4.5 GHz, but it worked at 4.625 and 4.75 GHz using 37x and 38x multipliers. Still finicky, it wouldn’t complete the entire benchmark suite, even with a longevity-unfriendly 1.44 V driving it. But my expectations for this one weren’t high anyway. And if you need a quad-core chip, I don’t see any reason to buy a high-end platform (X79), quad-channel memory kit, and a locked processor when the Z68/Core i7-2600K combo is cheaper, still very capable, and equipped with Quick Sync support.
We love to lust after the latest hardware, no matter the cost. But when it comes time to buy, sexy takes a back seat to sensible. That’s why a thousand-dollar processor like Intel’s Core i7-3960X doesn’t really add up. According to Intel’s official price list, you can get the Core i7-3930K for exactly $416 dollars less, sacrificing 3 MB of shared L3 cache and 100 MHz in the process. There’s an Epic Meal Time phrase I could use to illustrate the intelligence of that trade-off, but I’ll just leave it as: smart.
TL;DR: If you're gonna buy into the expensive X79 platform and you're not going with a Six-Core, you're wasting your money. If you're gonna go with a Quad-Core buy into the Z68/P67 or Z77 platform and if you're gonna go with a Six-Core buy into X79 and a 3930K. The -3820 is a completely odd duck in that it doesn't really fill any purpose yet you get to pay extra for it upfront and in your power bill, hence why it sells very little.After my review of Intel’s Core i7-3960X, I heard second-hand comments from several sources at Intel wondering why everyone else seemed to love the chip, and yet I pretty much recommended against buying it.
Knowing that the Core i7-3930K was just 100 MHz off of its mark and down 3 MB of shared L3 cache, I just had to know how it compared. So, I went and dropped $600 on the thing at Newegg. As an enthusiast making an actual purchase, and now with both the -3930K and -3960X in my possession, I can unequivocally affirm what I suggested in Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express: mainly, that smart enthusiasts who need the effective Sandy Bridge architecture and raw compute power of six cores will buy Core i7-3930K instead of-3960X.
TSX greatly improves multi-thread synchronization.No new improvements on HT or similar technology up the sleeve?
It's progression - it's NATURAL to expect MORE for the SAME PRICE range each generation. are you inept? insane? As virtualizing and multithreaded revolution takes up arms(It' should have already gone off by now imho) - more cores is more performance without reinventing the deep wheel.
The folks who say "who needs more than 4 cores" arent very forward thinking...
More cores is not always more performance without reinventing the wheel. If you understood programming, you would know that there are only so many threads you can make to perform a task before you either A. see no more gain, or B. code becomes way too complex to manage. Right now there are only a small selection of application which can use more than cpu 8 threads efficiently. And the other 90% of applications run fine on 4 cores and would not see any difference on 8.
So I must be insane. I dont think MOAR COREZ is the answer to everything. New Instructions, IPC increase, better cache subsystem, faster RAM is more important to me than more cores.
What is the price for a x58 setup in EU OP?
.. If we all had 12 cores nehalems atm - you seriously think games and anything else wouldn't be heavy threaded?
You think streaming and mobility devices would pop up if the radionet wasn't pushed on to edge, 3g, 4g?
It's so backwards to claim "we won't need more than a Quadcore" - well no shit.
Cause there's no reason for anyone to develop a product that requires more when we can't we buy more without selling our unborn child.
Yes I seriously think so, i would think you blew your money on next to nothing.
Writing "threaded" software is not *just* about designing your software "to be threaded" .. it is friggin hard given the current paradigm of programming languages .. you are looking at a real hurdle here. Shit has to get reinvented, the wheel has to get .. round again.
edit : point being, until you have a generic approach to utilizing n cores I believe we are kind of stalled here - what 'generic' software today utilizes 4 cores+ without a hiccup ? None. I wouldnt be surprised if we need a whole new kind of language to cope with this..
I have to say I agree with Mister Mac, mhz stagnation + core count stagnation == meh. I agree with Edrick, new ISA extensions should make the new four cores devastatingly fast in some cases.
I won't apologize for Intel, though. It is only through creating a dissatisfaction with the current situation that change can be driven. Cheerily taking whatever Intel gives us is silly, we should expect more... Shareholders want blood from the stone, as stakeholders we should get our due as well.
It looks like AMD might have a target niche to hit if they can deliver since Intel is set @ four cores/eight threads for the foreseeable future.
You not only have to code for Multithreading but you also will have to code the applications for AVX/AVX2 and new ISAs in general.
Having a single core with AVX is nice, having a dual AVX core is better, a quad AVX capable core is even faster and so on and so on.
We need all of them, new ISAs, higher IPC, higher core count and programs coded for multiprocessing. We also need applications taking advantage of new ISAs sooner.
I am a programmer, by degree and by profession...I am a programmer, by hobby.
It's complex on any architecture. But fortunately Haswell adds hardware transactional memory to greatly facilitate it and increase performance at the same time!It's not my fault threading and locking - is made a complex scheduling hell with x86\ia 64 implementations in most modern libraries.
The reality is that the majority of people have a dual-core CPU, and the number of people who still have a single-core is about the same as the number that have a quad-core. In other words, you can't cater for the 4+ core market any more than the single-core market if you want to create the best experience for everyone!It's the whole concept of evolution all over - give people more to use, more to learn, more to do - and people will do it.
That's why SSD's are under heavy development.That's all pretty shit useless with slowass DISK i\o - if you ever wanna actually manipulate that data.
I am a programmer, by degree and by profession...
It's complex on any architecture. But fortunately Haswell adds hardware transactional memory to greatly facilitate it and increase performance at the same time!
The reality is that the majority of people have a dual-core CPU, and the number of people who still have a single-core is about the same as the number that have a quad-core. In other words, you can't cater for the 4+ core market any more than the single-core market if you want to create the best experience for everyone!
That said, we're certainly not at a standstill. Ivy Bridge brings quad-core to mainstream laptops, and Haswell will extend on that and brings us AVX2 and TSX to boot.
So don't underestimate Intel. They know what the market needs. If it's evolving slower than you expected, maybe you should adjust your expectation and also see how revolutionary AVX2 and TSX really are.
That's why SSD's are under heavy development.
- I get paid as one, but that means jack.Are you a programmer?
- I am not quite sure I get this.Have you a designed a Asynchronous memory io for threading?
For controlling locks?
- ARH COMMON .. IF Anything I am ignorant .. and then pleaaaase educate me without the bs ..Then your entire post is useless and bs.
- TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE - therefor i amYou do not claim fact on given scenario with a subjects you have no knowledge of.
- that was redundant at best (sorry dude )It's mathematics, it's logic.