Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

10 Years of Intel Processors Compared

Posted by timothy on from the ok-but-those-are-all-recent-vintages dept.

jjslash writes to Techspot's interesting look back at the evolution of Intel CPUs since the original Core 2 Duo E6600 and Core 2 Quad processors were introduced. The test pits the eight-year-old CPUs against their successors in the Nehalem, Sandy Bridge and Haswell families, including today's Celeron and Pentium parts which fare comparably well. A great reference just days before Intel's new Skylake processor debuts.

98 comments

  1. Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish they also made benchmarks that only use a common base instruction set (SSE2/3), because most of the newer processor superiority probably comes from ISA extensions.

    1. Re:Different instruction sets by goarilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wish they compared early PIII Katmai or Coppermines to the Duo 6600. Because what the pessimist in me is seeing, isn't a cherrypicked 11 x increase in one bench but overall core performance stagnation.

    2. Re:Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      because most of the newer processor superiority probably comes from ISA extensions.

      Unlikely since most newer computers don't even support PCI.

    3. Re:Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to run a benchmark that deliberately cripples your processor by not using new features?
      That's like benchmarking your CPU while running at half the clock speed.

    4. Re:Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't be a meaningful test then, would it? Hey let's race these cars, but since the old ones don't have turbos, let's disable the turbos in the new ones too.

    5. Re: Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you're looking for.

    6. Re:Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because a lot of programs don't use those features because they are compiled to run on a wide variety of hardware.

    7. Re:Different instruction sets by goarilla · · Score: 1

      There are actual rules (weight, horse power, safety, ...) for cars wishing to compete in a race.

    8. Re:Different instruction sets by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Benchmarks are hard for comparing computing systems already. Design trade-offs are made all the time. As the nature of the software these systems run change over the time, so does the processor design changes to meet these changes. With more software taking advantage of the GPU there may be less effort in making your CPU handle floating points faster, so you can focus more on making integer math faster, or better threading...
      2005 compared to 2015...
      2005 - Desktop computing was King! Every user needed a Desktop/Laptop computer for basic computing needs.
      2015 - Desktop is for business. Mobile system Smart Phones/Tablets are used for basic computing needs, the Desktop is reserved for more serious work.

      2005 - Beginning of buzzword "Web 2.0" or the acceptance of JavaScript in browsers. Shortly before that most pages had nearly no JavaScript in they pages, if they were it was more for being a toy, at best data validation in a form. CSS features were also used in a very basic form. Browsers were still having problems with following the standards.
      2015 - "Web 2.0" is so ingrained that we don't call it that anymore. Browsers have more or less settled down and started following the open standards, And JavaScript powers a good portion of the pages Display. the the N Tier type of environment it has became a top level User Interface Tier. Even with all the Slashdot upgrade hate. Most of us barely remember. clicking the Reply link, having to load a new page to enter in your text. And then the page would reload when you are done.

      2005 - 32 bit was still the norm. Most software was in 32 bit, and you still needed compatibility for 16 bit apps.
      2015 - 64 bit is finally here. There is legacy support for 32 bit, but finally 16bit is out.

      These changes in how computing is used over the time, means processor design has to reweigh its tradeoffs it choose in previous systems, and move things around. Overall things are getting faster, but any one feature may not see an improvement or it may even regress.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Different instruction sets by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unlikely since most newer computers don't even support PCI.

      Obviously you were just trying to be clever, but this is a lot of bollocks. Even many machines which don't have any PCI bus connectors have a PCI bus...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how many of those programs are computing intensive? And how many of the computing intensive ones don't use libraries for some or all of the intensive parts? A lot of of software that is cpu bound got the message years ago that there are newer technologies and it is worth having more than one code path to take advantage of newer cpus or gpus or using a library that does that for you.

    11. Re: Different instruction sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M.slashdot.org works that way with the page reply

    12. Re:Different instruction sets by soap_and_dish · · Score: 1

      Web 2.0 was about JavaScript? I thought it was about user submitted content.

    13. Re:Different instruction sets by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Because what the pessimist in me is seeing, isn't a cherrypicked 11 x increase in one bench but overall core performance stagnation.

      Well, you can't say you weren't warned; there have been about a zillion articles along the lines of "everybody better learn how to multithread, because we've hit the wall on single-core performance and the only way to make use of extra transistors now is to add more cores".

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. I'll play. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

    Nought better to do
    Than post this drivel each day--
    What are you, 14?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:I'll play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confusing a man's rectum
      for a woman's reproductive system
      What are you, retarded?

    2. Re:I'll play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stop replying to trolls.

  3. Re:Intel processors are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says user sexconker (1179573)

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  4. Boring by mcfedr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was hoping to see an article discussing the changes in architecture and how the improvements have been made, not just regurgiting lists of bench marks

    1. Re:Boring by Burz · · Score: 1

      You're right. More interesting would be a comparison of Intel's benchmark cheats over the years...

      http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

  5. My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been wanting to upgrade my generations old i7 for a couple of years now. According to this article that would be one of the biggest wastes of money that i could spend on my computer.

    Imagine trying to use a 1995 cpu in 2000? and people still try to argue that computers are still getting faster as quickly as they ever were.

    1. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but most people talk about "speed" when they use their computer mainly as a terminal for the WWW. They would probably receive more benefit and apparent "speed" from upgrading their internet speed package instead of buying a faster machine.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      What's an i7? I'm still using the C2Q 6600 in my main desktop. It does just fine even in modern games, although I am planning to finally upgrade once Skylake CPUs our available.

    3. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still happily running a stock i7-920 C0 here.

    4. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an i7? I'm still using the C2Q 6600 in my main desktop. It does just fine even in modern games, although I am planning to finally upgrade once Skylake CPUs our available.

      i have a slightly better C2Q 6700 processor. But up to now my computer with 4GB of ram has been able to handle all the work that I do with it. Granted nowadays I don't play games as much as I used to so I don't give a crap's ass about energy guzzling video cards. The only reason for me to upgrade my computer is to have a really fast platform for virtualization. Barring this my current pc which is 9 years old suits me just fine. And I don't just surf the web or chat on facebook esclusively either.

      I guess the times of the pentium 75 when we upgraded every other month to get real better performance is history.

    5. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not just about the pace of change, it's about how well the machines handled the typical workloads of the day. In 1995, mainstream PCs struggled with the typical workloads of the day; my first laptop was a 100MHz Pentium with 8MB of RAM bought around then, and it was slow just booting up, getting online, word processing etc, even after I upgraded it to a massive 24MB of RAM. So any real-terms performance increase made a huge impact in terms of your day-to-day experience using the machines.

      Whereas in recent years, even a low-end machine isn't taxed by basic workloads, so the performance improvments don't really have much impact on your day-to-day experience. I can go from my 16GB i7 work laptop to my 4GB i3 ultrabook, and I'll only really notice a performance difference if I wanted to do something like encoding video or whatever.

    6. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, me too. They really hit a sweet spot there, I've never had a computer this long, and it still performs fantastically. Kitting it out with 12GB to begin with was a good move, and the best upgrade I ever did was to add an SSD for my build directories. There's no point upgrading your CPU if it's idle most of the time waiting for disc. Maybe my compile times could be reduced further now, but I wouldn't even know if a newer i7 would fit this motherboard. My guess is not.

    7. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by confused+one · · Score: 2

      Ancient? I've got a Pentium D 805 running as a general family use machine and a Pentium III running as a file server. I just got rid of a bunch of Pentium (as in the original) boards year. I have an 8080 I pulled from an old board, framed, hanging in my workshop. Now get off my lawn.

    8. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by goarilla · · Score: 2

      Well crappy Javascript code (as is prevalent on the web today) is pretty power hungry, but it's terrible everywhere anyway.

    9. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you buy a highend Haswell CPU, they're faster than the first generation by enough to make it matter. Anything newer and you're actually slowing down. Intel's new strategy is to make slower CPUs with faster graphics and lower power consumption.

    10. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Alomex · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've never used the "new and improved" Google Maps interface have you?

      It's just like the old one, but 10x slower.

    11. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by karnal · · Score: 2

      Right with you on a C2Q-6600 that's been running at 3ghz since the day it was first booted. You and I also share the same reason for upgrading - virtualization; although mine isn't as much for performance as it is for memory. I can only buy 8GB of ram for my current machine (DDR2) and would like more.

      --
      Karnal
    12. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean binary blob skylake? No thanks. I'm trying to stay away from the new DRM-friendly Intel processors.

    13. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'm still running the bottom-of-the-barrel CPU used in their list. Mid-2010 Mac mini, Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz E6600.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    14. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you buy a highend Haswell CPU, they're faster than the first generation by enough to make it matter. Anything newer and you're actually slowing down. Intel's new strategy is to make slower CPUs with faster graphics and lower power consumption.

      One thing I found when speccing a new computer was single thread performance. Properly designed intense workloads will multithread (even video encoding), but for day to day use, it's usually one thread that's bogging down the system. AMD in particular pushes for multithread performance at the expense of single thread performance. For Intel, i7 Haswell chips do great at multithreading, but only slightly better at single threaded performance than i5 Haswells, for substantially more cost. Since I don't game, I went with a higher end i5.

    15. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by edremy · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'm still using a Crusoe C2D in my primary desktop at home. With a decent video card, 4GB RAM and a SSD, it's just fine for most everything that isn't super high end simulation and gaming.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    16. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have an 8008 in a piece of equipment I could go in the other room and turn on. And 3 or 4 full tubes of Harris (Intersil clone) 6100s if I want to run the PDP-8 instruction set. My Kaypro has an 8080 in it, and isn't just a gutted part either.

      You're welcome to mow my lawn if you're just going to stand there.

    17. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      If you're running LGA1366 chips like the i7 920, you can acquire a 6-core (and bigger cache, and only 95W TDP so it runs cooler) Xeon X5650, 5660, 5670, or 5675 on eBay. Lots of datacenters are parting these chips out and selling them for about $70-100 apiece.

      For most X58 motherboards, all that's likely to berequired is a BIOS upgrade. If you could get 3.8 to 4.0 GHz on air on an i7-920, you can easily get 4.0-4.4 GHz on the Xeons.

      Best part is that the upgrade is literally a drop-in replacement. No software reconfiguration required.

    18. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by RoverDaddy · · Score: 2

      I was surprised by how 'flat' the performance increases are as well. If you interpret Moore's Law as expecting a doubling of performance ever 18 months (yes I know this wasn't what Moore's Law originally said, but for long time the transistor count on a die and performance ran hand in hand), 8 years gives time for 5.333 doublings. 2^5.333 is about 40.3. That is a big difference from the 'up to 11 times faster' results these benchmarks produced. If you're more lenient and allow for 2 years between expected performance doublings, the current processors should still be 16 times faster than those from 8 years earlier.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    19. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by maestroX · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, I have these pipes http://www.wanamakerorgan.com/... waiting for me to play, and that's only in house.
      To respect my lawn full light you best start mowing now, dim sum.

    20. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by stalky14 · · Score: 2

      Ancient?! I just went from a ca. 2006 2Ghz Core2Duo to a 1.7Ghz i3 a few months back. I don't game or do anything particularly CPU-intensive, so I wasn't expecting big changes, but DAMN! I had no idea. I think the drastically improved memory bandwidth really shows, particularly in Chrome. These are both 4GB machines with an SSD too. Anyway, the i3 was really excellent bang/buck. No regrets.

    21. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You've been waiting "a couple of years" to upgrade a CPU that is less then four years old? Just how long after buying it did you decide to upgrade?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:My ancient i7-2700 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't get worse than me.... finally got around to upgrading the CPU in the ...15 year old box. Doubled its performance! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  6. Poor organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They change the order of the processors in the graphs so it's hard to tell one from another, and they divided the page up into a bunch of tiny little pieces. Why?

    That's
    like
    putting
    each
    word
    on
    separate
    lines.

    Are they mentally challenged?

    1. Re:Poor organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more ad revenu from people who don't run adblock yet.

    2. Re:Poor organization by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      While we are trying to improve the article...

      Where is the 3770? I couldn't be bothered to type all the names-but-not-numbers into Google to see if one of them was the 3770.

      Just because Intel screwed up their naming conventions doesn't mean everyone else has to further such marketing-driven value-removal.

      --
      I come here for the love
  7. singularity inverted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    increase in single thread performance:
    1994 to 2004: x100
    2005 to 2015: x3

    bla.. bla... GPUs...

  8. CPU power is no longer relevant for general users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... up to and including everything but FPS e-peen gamers.

    I'm still running a first gen i7, and it provides more than enough horsepower to do anything and everything I need it to do (indlugin modern games).

    What I HAVE upgraded in that time (roughly 7.5 years) is:

    * HD to SSD (by far the biggest improvement)
    * Upgraded GPU
    * More RAM (from 6 up to 12GB)

    Sadly, despite the CPU not needing an upgrade, I will have to be upgrading sometime soon anyway, as I either want or really need newer features like USB-C (3.1), SATAIII, PCI Express, etc.

    Too bad the only feasible way to get those things is a new motherboard, which pretty much requires a new CPU and RAM at the very least too.

  9. The Intel memory management unit (MMU) .. by nickweller · · Score: 1, Redundant

    You would think by now Intel would have fixed the design flaws in the memory management unit (MMU) ..

    1. Re:The Intel memory management unit (MMU) .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you tell us what those are? Remember this is Slashdot, so if someone cites "design flaws" without any more detail I'm going to assume they don't understand the design space and are unreasonably expecting perfection along an arbitrary line that represents some specific use case of theirs that most people don't even care about.

    2. Re:The Intel memory management unit (MMU) .. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Remember this is Slashdot, so if someone cites "design flaws" without any more detail I'm going to assume they don't understand the design space and are unreasonably expecting perfection along an arbitrary line that represents some specific use case of theirs that most people don't even care about.

      Remember this is the internets, and if you can't use google, you're gonna have a bad time.

      https://www.blackhat.com/us-15...

      https://github.com/jbangert/tr...

      I searched "flaws in intel mmu" and got these results back in the top ten. Perhaps you should learn to internet, coward.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The Intel memory management unit (MMU) .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And those links provide no useful information at all. The first is just the abstract for a talk that hasn't been presented yet, so it claims a whole lot but proves nothing. And the second is just a toy that might suggest the MMU is flawed but does fuck-all to prove that whatever flaws they are exploiting actually matter. Before you go around bitching about others you should check that you actually have something worthwhile to contribute on the subject.

  10. "10 Years of Intel Processors Compared" by redmid17 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "So we compared 8 years of Intel processors....."
    sigh

    1. Re:"10 Years of Intel Processors Compared" by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      More than that, the graphs aren't clearly labeled, or in some cases they aren't even unit-labeled!

      That kind of amateur bullshit is like nails down the chalk board.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:"10 Years of Intel Processors Compared" by Duckman5 · · Score: 2

      More than that, the graphs aren't clearly labeled, or in some cases they aren't even unit-labeled!

      That kind of amateur bullshit is like nails down the chalk board.

      Be grateful for what you get around here. At least it's better than that lame-ass HP smartwatch article that we got a week ago. This one at least tells you what products were tested!

      Anyway, most of the graphs seem to have some kind of legend. They're just not very clear or consistent. Sometimes the unit is in the proper legend in the top right and sometimes it's in the subtitle of the graph. If it's a synthetic benchmark it won't have a unit. It's just a "score." Usually higher is better.

    3. Re:"10 Years of Intel Processors Compared" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is /. title. TFA title's "Almost 10 years".

    4. Re:"10 Years of Intel Processors Compared" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, it's obviously a typo. The headline should have read "010 Years of Intel Processors Compared".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  11. That's the whole point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They got better because they improved the ISA. That's why you want a new one. Taking that out would be basically saying "let's take away all the new features that were added and see if it's as good." The answer wouldn't be very interesting.

  12. 4K h.265 and 1080 h.264 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4K h.265 encoding at 2 frames per second on the fastest CPU. And I thought I had a memory channel bottleneck.

    Video encoding is insanely slow! How do TV stations handle moving editing and encoding their video. It seems that the evening news wouldn't be feasible at these encoding rates.

    1. Re: 4K h.265 and 1080 h.264 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's either done using GPUs, or dedicated cards from BlackMagic or Matrox, or explicit encoding hardware boxes. Also, the nightly news doesn't usually air in 4K.

    2. Re:4K h.265 and 1080 h.264 by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      4K h.265 encoding at 2 frames per second on the fastest CPU. And I thought I had a memory channel bottleneck.

      Video encoding is insanely slow! How do TV stations handle moving editing and encoding their video. It seems that the evening news wouldn't be feasible at these encoding rates.

      High end hardware, professional software that takes advantage of the GPU and custom hardware encoders. Plus, the editing is normally done on uncompressed video.
      Not to mention things like animation/effects and encoding are often done on a render farm of dedicated servers.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    3. Re: 4K h.265 and 1080 h.264 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPUs eat video encodes for lunch, nobody does it on the CPU.

    4. Re:4K h.265 and 1080 h.264 by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I believe editing is done with compressed video, but it's compressed frame by frame. The old MJPEG was used for this in the 90s, then it's a mode in MPEG-4 video, H264 and H265.
      For fun I've considered 4096x2160 video at 60 fps, encoded in RGB with 12 bits per pixel. (however unlikely using RGB might be)
      That's 2278 MiB per second of video, camera wouldn't even be able to write that to its storage.

  13. Moore's law got stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 core processor at 2007 and at 2015.
    Moore's law got stuck.

    1. Re:Moore's law got stuck by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Not on the AMD side as far as "bang for the buck" is concerned. In 2007 I paid $140 for a quad core CPU and last month I paid $132 for an octocore. Blows through transcodes like a boss and at $362 for the processor AND a gamer board AND 16GB of RAM? Its still got the bang for the buck like they did in 07.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  14. *yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    x86 variants.. Lets talk about the 8080, i960, or the i432.. THEN we have something cool to read about.

  15. 8 years, and still stuck at 2-4 cores... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Processors ought to have a minimum of twice the number of cores by now. Intel could at least have the decency to offer the option of trading a GPU for more cores.

    (Yes, there are outrageously expensive server parts with more cores...)

    1. Re:8 years, and still stuck at 2-4 cores... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the 90's Intel was unwilling to go from 32-bit to 64-bit. Later AMD did it and they were forced to license it from AMD.
      I am hoping AMD would bring 8-cores.

    2. Re:8 years, and still stuck at 2-4 cores... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Processors ought to have a minimum of twice the number of cores by now. Intel could at least have the decency to offer the option of trading a GPU for more cores.

      (Yes, there are outrageously expensive server parts with more cores...)

      They do. The only Intel "consumer" chips without a GPU are the 6-core EXTREME(!!!) edition.

    3. Re:8 years, and still stuck at 2-4 cores... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      The eXXXtreme is at eight cores now.

    4. Re:8 years, and still stuck at 2-4 cores... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

      You missed the part about minimum; it is meaningless if Intel offers some hideously expensive outlier part. Granted, there are some six core variants which cost less, but they are still expensive 130-140W LGA2011 parts. The mainstream is still stuck squarely with 2-4 cores. Two cores in 2015 is pitiful.

  16. Let me guess - the newer ones are better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess - the newer ones are better.

  17. 4 years, almost no change. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What strikes me the most is that today's processors are barely any faster than the 2011 processors.

    4 years and only a small speed increase in real performance - 4% for games!!!!! FOUR PERCENT over 4 years. Time to ditch silicon and to start using materials that support higher clock speeds.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:4 years, almost no change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more noticeable gains on application work. Not everything a CPU does is for games.

    2. Re:4 years, almost no change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more noticeable gains on application work. Not everything a CPU does is for games.

      Yes they are.

    3. Re:4 years, almost no change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Processors have been moving towards many cores, but most game engines are not yet optimized for that kind of parallel processing.

      I have 2 servers that each have 32 (somewhat low clocked) logical processors*. For the types of workloads on these servers (several hundred to a few thousand simultaneous connections) that works great, but games generally require one or a few higher clocked threads. They could be developed to be much more parallel -- one thread per player, one thread for each bot/npc, but the busiest of the threads is still going to be the main game loop and there is only so much that can easily be pulled out of it.

      * Dual E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz. 2 package(s) x 8 core(s) x 2 SMT threads

    4. Re:4 years, almost no change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Games aren't normally CPU bound so that is to be expected.

    5. Re:4 years, almost no change. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How much of that is the fault of the processor vs the fault of the games which really haven't gotten any more visually stunning thanks to coding primarily for the lowest common denominator, consoles.

  18. Now I really feel old by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I haven't purchased a new desktop CPU in at least that long. I know we have great new stuff out there but I just haven't seen anything come in for some time that justifies the cost when my existing stuff still works for what I do.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  19. 6 cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Plenty of 6 core Xeon X5650 boxes one eBay for a fraction of their retail.

  20. No Xeon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish they had included Xeons, even though they're considered "server" processors rather than desktop.

    I was running an i5-2500k overclocked on my mobo, and was looking at upgrading to an i7-3770k to get virtualization and hyperthreading, but it would have cost me well over $300.

    Instead, I found a deal on a Xeon E3-1245v2 for $219 and I'm very happy with it. Runs at 77W instead of 95W too.

    1. Re:No Xeon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIUC, you don't want K for virtualization. K is for overclocking, but it lacks virtualization support. Again, IIUC.

      Someone please confirm or deny my claim.

    2. Re: No Xeon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4790K supports it. 5775C and 5775R also.

  21. Pentium 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Where's mention of the oft rumored Pentium 5? That was going to be one bad ass processor.

  22. I've seen better comparisons by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 2

    A much better comparison would have been if they'd compared the same CPUs at the same frequency so that IPC gains could be immediately spotted. Also I've never understood the point of all-in-one benchmarks like PCMark which measure everything and nothing because various PCs with wildly different CPUs/GPUs/RAM configurations have very similar results.

  23. Re:CPU power is no longer relevant for general use by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    You can also add controller cards. PCIe 4x 2.0 card - goes in either 4x slot or 16x slot - has 2GB/s to play with, which is enough for the newer stuff.

    Cheap PCIe 1x 2.0 card with an ASMedia SATA 6 Gbps controller (two ports) is good enough, even if the bus limits it to a theoretical 500MB/s.

  24. Progress is slowing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the difference between a 25kHz 486 from 1989 and a 500kHz P3 from 1999 is much larger

  25. Only 10 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm think I'm not a very unusual enthusiast still running a Q9550

  26. What kind of crappy Benchmark is this? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Deliberately bottlenecking the hell out of the older Dual cores with a GTX 980 and 4GB RAM?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.