Gaming Octacore Anytime Soon?

Circumnavigate

Circumnavigate

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
239
I was reading about the Haswell and if I understand correctly the 8 core versions are not targeted towards gamers. Does anyone know when 8 core gaming oriented CPUs will begin popping out :confused:
 
There are 8 core+ LGA2011 Xeons now. They are expensive enough that anyone calling themselves a "gamer" would need to mortgage their parents car to afford one.

4 HT cores is where it will continue to be for a while thanks to AMD giving up on the enthusiast segment.
 
If by "gaming," you mean overclockable 8-cores, then yes, Haswell-E will have overclockable 8-core processors. It'll probably cost you at least $1000, plus $300 motherboard plus expensive DDR4.
 
Considering both next gen consoles have 8 core CPU's, I wouldn't doubt it games capable of supporting 6-8 cores start popping up on PC now since most devs do cross platform development. Naughty Dog already has their engine running on 6 cores. Too bad they don't make PC games.
 
Thanks for the help guys!

Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
 
"Gaming"

Lol.

Games these days run well on Haswell i3's even, much less a 4 core or 4 core + HT.
 
Circumnavigate said:
I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less
Click to expand...

:eek:

Not a chance.

If the lowest end Haswell-E is 6 core that will be nice. If the top end Skylake comes with 6 cores that will be nice. Both are possible, but 8 cores, especially for $300? Absolutely not.
 
You could always game on this but it will likely set you back somewhere around $400k or so (price wasn't listed, and the saying goes if you have to ask...). Note the 60 cores and 6TB of RAM :D. "If its worth doing. It is worth overdoing." Mythbusters
The only downside is you couldn't do SLI/Crossfire. But you could make one hell of a RAM drive :D.
e89666feb714ab9c3946f28f00c5d8c4(4).jpg

Linkage to manufacture product page: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10QBI.cfm
 
Circumnavigate said:
Thanks for the help guys!

Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAhahaha...

Oh wait, you were being serious.

From AMD, maybe. From Intel, not next generation nor the generation after that. Maybe 4 or 5 generations down the road.
 
AMD's 8 core chips run games just fine. Really, the only time I see any real difference between my FX 8320 and i7 4930k is when I'm playing Kerbal Space Program @ 4k resolution.

There's no need to spend an arm and a leg on a CPU. An i5 is probably the best choice for gaming in most cases. The FX 8320 is a good choice if you do other things that can take advantage of the extra cores.
 
Circumnavigate said:
Thanks for the help guys!

Gaming is a vague term, I guess I was hoping for an octacore around $300 (just for the cpu) or less that would run games very well.
Click to expand...

Outside of SOCs not going to happen for a long long time if ever. And with nothing equivalent to an 8 core i7 from AMD even planned nothing will push it to happen either. I mean when do you expect AMD to release a 6 cpu module chip that has a stock clock at > 4 GHz?
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that it is MAY be possible in the next few years.

My thinking is that games will be designed for 6-8 cores
AMD will start selling a lot more 6-8 core CPUs if they can market well.
Intel will respond my introducing 6 core i7 chips.

However, my dream of a 6 core i5 K model is a long way off.

The only way i see it happening is if games become so multicore optimized that AMD can pressure Intel.
 
Last edited:
AMD will start selling a lot more 6-8 core CPUs if they can market well.
Click to expand...

They seem to be moving away from that. I mean no current plans to update FX. And all the APUs 4 cores max.
 
Define gaming oriented 8 core? Didn't think they made those other then for PS4 and Xbox One

If you want an overclockable 8 core for the $300 a current gen i7 4770k costs don't think that is happening any time soon.

Haswell extreme edition will have 8 cores but it will probably retail for $1000 if not more. Plus you have to buy DDR4 and a new motherboard.

You can actually get 12 overclockable cores with SLI support on a EVGA SR-2 dual socket motherboard right now. It is 2 generations old but still pretty good and isn't ridiculously expensive if you buy used. I hear these can be a pain to setup though.

Do any current games other then Battlefield actually use 8 cores? 8 cores is awesome if your streaming to twitch though.
 
Last edited:
MrGuvernment said:
there isnt because you dont need an Octocore for gaming...
Click to expand...

Yeah, we don't need 8 cores for gaming. Intel should just make all "gaming" chips 4GHz dual cores, since that's all we really need, limit the memory to a maximum 8GB of RAM (since we don't need more). Yeah, restrict all gaming chips to 4GHz dual cores and lock them down (since if they're clocked faster by default, we won't need to overclock them for gaming):rolleyes:

There's absolutely no point in making a processor that could, say, do everything you could ask from it right? No point in making a dual capable, unlocked 12 or 15 core CPU that could encode video faster than anything else, game faster than anything else, compile faster than anything else...and do it ALL at the same time in ONE rig??!!??

Nope, no point at all. Let's just build separate rigs for each task we need to do....:rolleyes:
 
bigdogchris said:
Considering both next gen consoles have 8 core CPU's, I wouldn't doubt it games capable of supporting 6-8 cores start popping up on PC now since most devs do cross platform development. Naughty Dog already has their engine running on 6 cores. Too bad they don't make PC games.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't consider an AMD 8 core to be equal to an Intel 8 core, let alone a very very low-end AMD 8 core CPU.

It will help push development somewhat because they wont have a choice but to focus on multi-threading due to it being a low-end part.
 
What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
I just recently upgraded my AMD x4 620 to the new Haswell i7-4770 and I have yet to find a game that is really hurting my fps. This i7 was only $300 and it has the 8 threads, they look like cores to me when I bring up performance monitor, lol.
I got Crysis II on Steam last night for $6 to test it and it is set for full Ultra quality and my machine is not phased yet. Skyrim with a hardcore ENB setting is hitting the machine harder than Crysis II. I need to try out 3.
I do a lot of movie encoding and that is the reason I went with the i7 instead of the i5, plus it was only $30 more so it looked like a no brainer to me.
 
drescherjm said:
They seem to be moving away from that. I mean no current plans to update FX. And all the APUs 4 cores max.
Click to expand...

I think this depends on how successful HSA turns out to be.

Occidio said:
What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
I just recently upgraded my AMD x4 620 to the new Haswell i7-4770 and I have yet to find a game that is really hurting my fps. This i7 was only $300 and it has the 8 threads, they look like cores to me when I bring up performance monitor, lol.
I got Crysis II on Steam last night for $6 to test it and it is set for full Ultra quality and my machine is not phased yet. Skyrim with a hardcore ENB setting is hitting the machine harder than Crysis II. I need to try out 3.
I do a lot of movie encoding and that is the reason I went with the i7 instead of the i5, plus it was only $30 more so it looked like a no brainer to me.
Click to expand...

Hyperthreading is a completely different technology from adding more cores.

The simplest way I can put it is this:

Imagine someone working in a manufacturing line. That's the core. But in order for the person to work, the materials need to be prepared. That's the front end, the decoder and prefetch. Sometimes, the preparer can't keep up with the person working. In that case, the worker is idle, waiting for the preparer to catch up. With hyperthreading, each worker gets an additional preparer, so if one can't keep the worker busy, the second gives it some work until the first can catch up.

Basically, hyperthreading isn't additional cores. It's keeping the cores you have more busy. In threads where there is no decoder bottleneck, there is no performance gain from hyperthreading. In threads where there is a bottleneck, performance increases of 10-30% can be seen.
 
Tsumi said:
Basically, hyperthreading isn't additional cores. It's keeping the cores you have more busy. In threads where there is no decoder bottleneck, there is no performance gain from hyperthreading. In threads where there is a bottleneck, performance increases of 10-30% can be seen.
Click to expand...

There is however overprovisioning (extra processing power than a typical thread needs) this can help quite a bit.
 
Liger88 said:
I wouldn't consider an AMD 8 core to be equal to an Intel 8 core, let alone a very very low-end AMD 8 core CPU.

It will help push development somewhat because they wont have a choice but to focus on multi-threading due to it being a low-end part.
Click to expand...

That's an even better reason to utilize all available cores, since you know they are slow for single threaded performance.

This will probably push more devs to use multiple cores, and that should carry over for PC.
 
Occidio said:
What would be the major difference between 8 cores or 4 core 8 HT's in reality?
I just recently upgraded my AMD x4 620 to the new Haswell i7-4770 and I have yet to find a game that is really hurting my fps. This i7 was only $300 and it has the 8 threads, they look like cores to me when I bring up performance monitor, lol.
I got Crysis II on Steam last night for $6 to test it and it is set for full Ultra quality and my machine is not phased yet. Skyrim with a hardcore ENB setting is hitting the machine harder than Crysis II. I need to try out 3.
I do a lot of movie encoding and that is the reason I went with the i7 instead of the i5, plus it was only $30 more so it looked like a no brainer to me.
Click to expand...

With an 8 core CPU, you have 16 threads. Which would work out very nicely for playing a demanding game and encoding a movie...at the same time. Right now, you need to choose which task you want to do or buy a second rig if you need to do both tasks at the same time. An unlocked, dual-capable 8-core (or 12 core), that could be overclocked would be capable of doing a great deal at once...and doing single threaded tasks no slower than the run-of-the-mill i7. The best of both worlds. Some folks would pay very handsomely for such a system, myself included. But Intel has chosen not to offer us such a processor....for any price.:(
 
Intel is going to come the the same issue it faced with the P4. You need keep improving but you can't push ahead on speed, so you need to increase core count. I'm rocking an i5-2500k and would love to upgrade, as would people with i7-920s but we have nothing worth while to upgrade to. I know that gamers don't count for that many sales, however, many people that use computer for work would also like to upgrade. I'm sure that people into video editing, modeling ect. would like an i7 8 core processor.
 
would like an i7 8 core processor.
Click to expand...

I would love 12 core / 24 threaded 4GHz+ stock processor at work. I would easily peg all cores at 100% CPU usage during some of my work although other parts of my work only one of those cores will get much work.. Although even if this did exist the price would be way out of what I could convince the boss I could spend on such a system..
 
lutjens said:
Yeah, we don't need 8 cores for gaming. Intel should just make all "gaming" chips 4GHz dual cores, since that's all we really need, limit the memory to a maximum 8GB of RAM (since we don't need more). Yeah, restrict all gaming chips to 4GHz dual cores and lock them down (since if they're clocked faster by default, we won't need to overclock them for gaming):rolleyes:

There's absolutely no point in making a processor that could, say, do everything you could ask from it right? No point in making a dual capable, unlocked 12 or 15 core CPU that could encode video faster than anything else, game faster than anything else, compile faster than anything else...and do it ALL at the same time in ONE rig??!!??

Nope, no point at all. Let's just build separate rigs for each task we need to do....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the part where everyone was talking about "Gaming", not everything else.

Bitter much?

I am normally the overkill kind of guy, but for pure gaming, again, you don't need an Octocore.
 
drescherjm said:
I would love 12 core / 24 threaded 4GHz+ stock processor at work. I would easily peg all cores at 100% CPU usage during some of my work although other parts of my work only one of those cores will get much work.. Although even if this did exist the price would be way out of what I could convince the boss I could spend on such a system..
Click to expand...

15c 30t Xeons have already been released for LGA2011.

They'll cost you $6500 each for dual-QPI chips @ 2.8gHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/75242/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-2890-v2-37_5M-Cache-2_80-GHz
 
silk186 said:
Intel is going to come the the same issue it faced with the P4. You need keep improving but you can't push ahead on speed, so you need to increase core count. I'm rocking an i5-2500k and would love to upgrade, as would people with i7-920s but we have nothing worth while to upgrade to. I know that gamers don't count for that many sales, however, many people that use computer for work would also like to upgrade. I'm sure that people into video editing, modeling ect. would like an i7 8 core processor.
Click to expand...

The problem with the P4's and going above the 3.8GHZ stock barrier then (Intel did release a prototype 4GHZ 478 back in 04 and the only reviewer that had it was Tom's Hardware) was due to massive heat and power differences. There was no efficient consumer grade cooling (excluding phase change coolers, LN2/DICE and custom looped W/C) to evenly dissipate the heat on a 4GHZ 130nm Northwood or 90nm Prescott. Nowadays both heat and power isn't an issue but Intel will reach the limitations of silicon fabrication and would need to move onto other materials to fit a 5nm die shrink efficiently and so. But that's so far all just speculation as I heard graphite might be the future.
 
@Matthew Kane - I know it isn't a perfect analogy but close enough
 
Wait until Star Citizen comes out in 2015, to see if and how Star Citizen is pushing quadcore into hexacore territory. Chris Roberts mentioned hexacore as a maybe.

My expectations on 8 core gaming is really low. I'm hoping that the 130 W / 150 W TDP micro miniaturization, lowers hexacores into the 100 W TDP or sub 100 W TDP ( since I try not to buy any CPU with a TDP higher than 100 W ) and all Intel seems to be doing right now is making CPUs lower power ( if you look at the newer quadcores ).

When I think of quad core for gaming, I think of two cores doing running my virus scanner, while the other two cores run gaming, such that virus scanning in real time, doesn't impact on my gaming experience ( LOL ).

I'm skeptical about the hype. Writing code to maximize threads is complex, from what I have read. How many games require more than two cores or actually utilize multi threading? PC gaming seems to embrace mediocrity, in the same way that consoles embrace the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind that Hexacores are probably a tiny fraction of 1% of extreme gaming right now. There have been performance problems in the past, with games that push cores, that most people don't have access to ( for financial reasons ) which leads to people whining to developers about sluggish performance.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Maybe you missed the part where everyone was talking about "Gaming", not everything else.

Bitter much?

I am normally the overkill kind of guy, but for pure gaming, again, you don't need an Octocore.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps Intel should just make the above-mentioned "Gamer Edition" dual core CPU, that is restricted to 8GB of RAM and disable overclocking on every other chip. Since games most often don't utilize more than two cores, an overclockable quad core is pointless, right?

Most people don't just do pure gaming on a machine. Sure, some do, but often folks who game have other stuff they'd like to do at the same time. I personally would rather have one overkill system that'll take care of anything I throw at it, rather than multiple systems for each individual task. I game a fair bit myself, but like to encode video in the background...a process that would go much faster with more cores. To move to a system with more cores would work and increase encoding speed but the massive drop in clock speed would hurt poorly threaded apps, which I don't want to do. An overclocked duallie would be the best solution, but Intel seems to have no interest in making a dual-capable CPU that is overclockable.


Skripka said:
15c 30t Xeons have already been released for LGA2011.

They'll cost you $6500 each for dual-QPI chips @ 2.8gHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/75242/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-2890-v2-37_5M-Cache-2_80-GHz
Click to expand...

These use Socket R1, which is incompatible with the current 2011 socket, and are therefore mostly useless to the non-enterprise user.
 
[21CW]killerofall;1040693346 said:
You could always game on this but it will likely set you back somewhere around $400k or so (price wasn't listed, and the saying goes if you have to ask...). Note the 60 cores and 6TB of RAM :D. "If its worth doing. It is worth overdoing." Mythbusters
The only downside is you couldn't do SLI/Crossfire. But you could make one hell of a RAM drive :D.
e89666feb714ab9c3946f28f00c5d8c4(4).jpg

Linkage to manufacture product page: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10QBI.cfm
Click to expand...

I don't think that thing even offers PCI-E power support. The HP DL580 Gen8 is what I'd be looking at if I had the inclination to spend that much money on a computer. In addition, one could stick to 256GB of RAM and reduce the price by a great deal.
 
Last edited:
lutjens, not sure why your obsessed with Dual Cores and Intel making only dual cores, since there was no mention of that anywhere i saw. Intel will make what ever they want because they know "pure gamers" will go out and buy 8,10 or 12 core CPU's for their gaming rigs, just like people who buy SLI / Xfire rigs with 2,3 or 4 cards for 1080 screens when %99 of the time they don't need it.

Intel isnt making 4Ghz dual core or quads because they can't, reliably, same issue back in the p4 days as mentioned, they hit a speed barrier and couldnt get past it so invent HT, and then toss more cores at the problem/ but then if RAW GHZ was better. AMD would be so far ahead of Intel on performance, but they are not.

4 slower cores will be better for video encoding than 2 faster cores unless your talking like 1.6Ghz quads vs 4Ghz dual cores.....

It isnt worth it for intel to make an over clockable dual core i3, because most people who over clock, want more than 2 cores i assume......Or Intel just doesnt want people buying cheap $150 CPU's to get performance close to a $200+ CPU.

People like to be excessive "just incase", we all do it, or have done it, and some of us eventually realize we don't need it and spend that money elsewhere.

I to do many things at once on my computer while i game, and i held back and bought an i5 instead of an i7 on my rig i have right now, because when i had my i7, and i told myself i was going to be doing 100 things at once, in the end, i barely did.

i only build quad cores for people because of the "what if..." scenario's of what they may be doing in 3 months, 1 year, 2 years.
 
MrGuvernment said:
lutjens, not sure why your obsessed with Dual Cores and Intel making only dual cores, since there was no mention of that anywhere i saw. Intel will make what ever they want because they know "pure gamers" will go out and buy 8,10 or 12 core CPU's for their gaming rigs, just like people who buy SLI / Xfire rigs with 2,3 or 4 cards for 1080 screens when %99 of the time they don't need it.

Intel isnt making 4Ghz dual core or quads because they can't, reliably, same issue back in the p4 days as mentioned, they hit a speed barrier and couldnt get past it so invent HT, and then toss more cores at the problem/ but then if RAW GHZ was better. AMD would be so far ahead of Intel on performance, but they are not.

4 slower cores will be better for video encoding than 2 faster cores unless your talking like 1.6Ghz quads vs 4Ghz dual cores.....

It isnt worth it for intel to make an over clockable dual core i3, because most people who over clock, want more than 2 cores i assume......Or Intel just doesnt want people buying cheap $150 CPU's to get performance close to a $200+ CPU.

People like to be excessive "just incase", we all do it, or have done it, and some of us eventually realize we don't need it and spend that money elsewhere.

I to do many things at once on my computer while i game, and i held back and bought an i5 instead of an i7 on my rig i have right now, because when i had my i7, and i told myself i was going to be doing 100 things at once, in the end, i barely did.

i only build quad cores for people because of the "what if..." scenario's of what they may be doing in 3 months, 1 year, 2 years.
Click to expand...

Buying a system that just meets one's needs often is a path to dissatisfaction. As one's needs grow, folks who buy a system that only meets their immediate needs can easily find themselves with an inadequate machine in short order. Going along with the premise of only buying a system that's needed, the theoretical dual core CPU should be all that's needed for a strictly gaming machine, but many users will find themselves seeking more CPU performance as time goes on, often not long after purchase. The same goes for storage, power supply capacity, video card performance and chassis size. I've built minimalist computers for people, who against my advice, wanted a barebones configuration. Often, a short time later, either their needs have expanded or were larger than they let on initially. These same people contact me, realizing that they should have commissioned a more well-rounded system in the first place and sheepishly ask for quotes to upgrade. They end up spending more by upgrading than they would have to build a decent system from the outset.

Folks who do a lot on their machines and who can use the power that an 8 or 12 core unlocked CPU could provide should be able to purchase one. Many people don't just want it for vanity or for something to do...they can actually use such a chip and many can use the power that two of these processors together would offer. These folks want such a CPU, and want it badly. Intel steadfastly refuses to release one, believing that there is no interest in such a CPU, basing their decision on the poor sales of the QX9775 back in the day. This is a fallacy, as back then, one could take any low speed Xeon and overclock it to the level of the QX9775, often with no issues whatsoever, which made spending big money on the QX9775 pointless. Today, it's a different story, and as there would be no other CPU to choose from, a significant number of people would eagerly ante up for such a chip today. They can't, however, because Intel steadfastly and adamently refuses to release any unlocked processor with more than 6 cores (yes I know Haswell-E is coming), let alone a dual-capable one, basically flipping the bird at what they should be considering it's most valued customers.

There is also an insane degree of overkill that few people truly need to indulge in and do so just because they feel like it. It's a hobby to them, they can afford it, and although they don't really need an over-the-top system, they build it anyway. As you mentioned, some get bored of this and realize that they don't need such a system and refrain from building one in the future. But some truly enjoy being able to build a system like that and manufacturers should be catering to folks in that category, not marginalizing them by denying availability of top drawer hardware.
 
lutjens said:
Buying a system that just meets one's needs often is a path to dissatisfaction. As one's needs grow, folks who buy a system that only meets their immediate needs can easily find themselves with an inadequate machine in short order. Going along with the premise of only buying a system that's needed, the theoretical dual core CPU should be all that's needed for a strictly gaming machine, but many users will find themselves seeking more CPU performance as time goes on, often not long after purchase. The same goes for storage, power supply capacity, video card performance and chassis size. I've built minimalist computers for people, who against my advice, wanted a barebones configuration. Often, a short time later, either their needs have expanded or were larger than they let on initially. These same people contact me, realizing that they should have commissioned a more well-rounded system in the first place and sheepishly ask for quotes to upgrade. They end up spending more by upgrading than they would have to build a decent system from the outset.

Folks who do a lot on their machines and who can use the power that an 8 or 12 core unlocked CPU could provide should be able to purchase one. Many people don't just want it for vanity or for something to do...they can actually use such a chip and many can use the power that two of these processors together would offer. These folks want such a CPU, and want it badly. Intel steadfastly refuses to release one, believing that there is no interest in such a CPU, basing their decision on the poor sales of the QX9775 back in the day. This is a fallacy, as back then, one could take any low speed Xeon and overclock it to the level of the QX9775, often with no issues whatsoever, which made spending big money on the QX9775 pointless. Today, it's a different story, and as there would be no other CPU to choose from, a significant number of people would eagerly ante up for such a chip today. They can't, however, because Intel steadfastly and adamently refuses to release any unlocked processor with more than 6 cores (yes I know Haswell-E is coming), let alone a dual-capable one, basically flipping the bird at what they should be considering it's most valued customers.

There is also an insane degree of overkill that few people truly need to indulge in and do so just because they feel like it. It's a hobby to them, they can afford it, and although they don't really need an over-the-top system, they build it anyway. As you mentioned, some get bored of this and realize that they don't need such a system and refrain from building one in the future. But some truly enjoy being able to build a system like that and manufacturers should be catering to folks in that category, not marginalizing them by denying availability of top drawer hardware.
Click to expand...

I built my mom a Athlon X2 7850 computer with 2gb RAM and 120gb hard drive using spare parts, approximately 4 years ago. She tells me she has no need for me to upgrade her computer. Similarly within the same timeframe, I built my brother a Athlon II x4 640 based system with a 4850, and my sister a Phenom II 955 with GTX 275, both running 300 gb Velociraptors. None of them have asked me to upgrade their computer, despite me asking them if they want an upgrade. And it's not just my family either. Most of my relatives are running Phenom II x4 level hardware or older, some even running Core2Duos. In fact, one of them even asked me to try to resurrect a Celeron machine. Not a modern Celeron, but an early Core2Duo era Celeron.

The average person isn't going to care about upgrading a computer. They upgrade when it fails or it can no longer do what they want it to do (i.e. not be able to play a game). As long as it does what they want it to do, they don't really care to upgrade. I've invited my brother to play on my computer in nVsurround. He doesn't care, he just prefers using his computer. And it's not like he's a casual player, he is in FPS clans, and often gets the higher KD ratios. As long as it's good enough to allow him to win at his games, he doesn't care about graphics. The group that constantly wants more is a small group. Why is it the desktop market is shrinking while the mobile market is booming in the consumer space?

And no, it's not a fallacy that Intel refuses to release unlocked 8-core processors. They're doing that to segregate and force people that want high clocked 8-core processors to pray the ultra-high premium for them (Xeons), so they can make more money. It is no error on their part that they didn't release an 8-core i7 this generation. It was a business decision to increase their profits. Additionally, the enthusiast market is tiny. The only reason Intel caters to it is that it influences their position in other markets, because those in the enthusiast market can influence other markets. And the tiny bit of profit it brings from selling leftover Xeon chips.
 
@Tsumi It's funny that you seem to be against high end CPUs, a core2due celeron is enough when you have a core i7 3820. If they don't release better CPUs power users won't feel the need to upgrade. When friends ask them about upgrading they will recommend against it. Similarly when people recommended against upgrading to Vista. This can have an effect on the market. If everyone is saying that we have nothing to upgrade to than many people will follow the sentiment.

To be honest, Intel doesn't give a crap about your family, and why should they? Of course their is a market segment that only goes on facebook and reads e-mails. They run hand-me-down systems and have no intention of buying a new computer at any price point. This group is irrelevant to Intel. My father an I build mid-range systems and we both have i5-2500k builds. When something good comes out we will either sell or parts to the second hand market or hand them down to my 2 sisters depending on how many years it take and what we can get selling them.
 
silk186 said:
@Tsumi It's funny that you seem to be against high end CPUs, a core2due celeron is enough when you have a core i7 3820. If they don't release better CPUs power users won't feel the need to upgrade. When friends ask them about upgrading they will recommend against it. Similarly when people recommended against upgrading to Vista. This can have an effect on the market. If everyone is saying that we have nothing to upgrade to than many people will follow the sentiment.

To be honest, Intel doesn't give a crap about your family, and why should they? Of course their is a market segment that only goes on facebook and reads e-mails. They run hand-me-down systems and have no intention of buying a new computer at any price point. This group is irrelevant to Intel. My father an I build mid-range systems and we both have i5-2500k builds. When something good comes out we will either sell or parts to the second hand market or hand them down to my 2 sisters depending on how many years it take and what we can get selling them.
Click to expand...

Since when did I say I was against high end CPUs? You misunderstand the purpose of my post. Perhaps you should read the post I was responding to before reading my post.

A non-enthusiast does not need nor wants continuous upgrades, unless they're doing workstation stuff where CPU power directly translates to money earned. They take what is recommended for them, and don't ask for more, in general. Only when they encounter a situation where their system cannot do what they need (i.e. play a certain game that requires a newer DX version, can't store all music, etc) will they ask for an upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top