WarWeeny Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 There's nothing lazy about Intel's improvements. compair it to the gains of pentium to core 2 duo or from core 2 duo to the i7 series. those were good gains for a new architechture, this is pretty lackluster if you compair it to the previous gains of generation of processors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 There's nothing lazy about Intel's improvements. compair it to the gains of pentium to core 2 duo or from core 2 duo to the i7 series. those were good gains for a new architechture, this is pretty lackluster if you compair it to the previous gains of generation of processors. Heres the thing that has to be put into perspective. YEar over year you can only build so much performance improvement into a product. Most of the improvements are meant for the mobile market as it is becoming the bigger piece of the pie. Coming from a socket 1366 or 775 or AM2 platform you will see massive upticks in performance. Even against SB and IVB there are marked improvements. At the same price point currently its not a bad option as an upgrade from earlier platforms. As an upgrade from SB or IVB thats a personal decision but more native SATA 6Gbps is a strong option for some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 compair it to the gains of pentium to core 2 duo or from core 2 duo to the i7 series. those were good gains for a new architechture, this is pretty lackluster if you compair it to the previous gains of generation of processors. Low hanging fruit always comes first. Sure, P4 -> Core 2 was a huge jump (because the P4 was pretty crappy). Core 2 -> Nehalem was another big jump (integrated memory controller). Everything since then has been incremental improvements in IPC and pretty substantial increases in efficiency, top end clocks, and feature set. It's harder to improve an already amazing product that wipes the floor with the competition at almost every comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarWeeny Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 compair it to the gains of pentium to core 2 duo or from core 2 duo to the i7 series. those were good gains for a new architechture, this is pretty lackluster if you compair it to the previous gains of generation of processors. 1) Low hanging fruit always comes first. 2) It's harder to improve an already amazing product that wipes the floor with the competition at almost every comparison. 1: i hiope so.. 2: *look at bold part* this is where i was aiming at in the previous page of intel being a bit lazy because they are already so far ahead of the pack, that the improvements arent that great anymore because there is no need for it to be so much better then ivy or sandy because those are their own products. you can say you compete with yourself (intels words not mine) and convince others, but in the end, the results dont deliver what they say and thus i think intel is a bit lazy in this part. until amd releases something that is comming close to the perfomance of the ivy bridges (2020ish if they keep this up) i dont think you will see another massive jump in performance from the upcomming processors and architechtures desktop wise. its sad but i also think it is a good thing, processors dont get faster then a 5ghz sandy or 4,5 ivy bridge and the need for that horsepower is no where near needed for games on the moment. maybe now they go for lower power consumpition or even better, give the processors a thing they can live longer, instead of aiming at perfomance, this would benefit all users, not just the hardcore market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 you can say you compete with yourself (intels words not mine) and convince others, but in the end, the results dont deliver what they say and thus i think intel is a bit lazy in this part. They delivered exactly what they promised. Where do you see them falling short? Also - regardless of whether or not AMD has a comparable chip the huge driving force for Intel is the HPC and industry sector. Performance is first but only if power consumption isn't terrible. Reducing power consumption while still increasing performance at all is a huge jump forward for everyone IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarWeeny Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 you can say you compete with yourself (intels words not mine) and convince others, but in the end, the results dont deliver what they say and thus i think intel is a bit lazy in this part. They delivered exactly what they promised. Where do you see them falling short? its more on what they say on competing with them selfs. i have heard some stuff that hashwell would be like 20% faster then ivy and it is not even close to that number (5/10% at best) could be wrong but it doesnt make up for the fact that the hashwel procesors arent that great compaired to ivy or sandy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 You didn't hear that from Intel...so that's their fault how? I don't think any tech company can stand still in terms of innovation and not completely tank these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarWeeny Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 You didn't hear that from Intel...so that's their fault how? i didnt say i heard that from intel (20% gain over previous proc), i just heard those stuff ;P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d6bmg Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) There's nothing lazy about Intel's improvements. compair it to the gains of pentium to core 2 duo or from core 2 duo to the i7 series. those were good gains for a new architechture, this is pretty lackluster if you compair it to the previous gains of generation of processors. Maybe because he current technology is going towards a saturation point. AFAIK, the fabrication technology can't go beyond 10/12nm or so (I forgot the actual value). Edited June 2, 2013 by d6bmg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boinker Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 Hey there cokeman, What did you think of the Extreme tuner utility, I personally love it, as im curious what you thought of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny0709 Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 I won't be upgrading this time around, lets see what the next generation holds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciddono Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 I won't be upgrading this time around, lets see what the next generation holds. Of course not. Your rig is in the upper echelon of the consumer/performance market. I on the other hand, am using a C2D. In the next month I will be building a completely new machine. I put together a sub $1000 build and find it hard to NOT go Haswell. Sure I could save $100 or so and build an IB. But why not set myself up for a better, longer term system. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts