Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range...

Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?

Or that a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?

You could put a 7 year old processor in a gaming rig and still play the latest games on max settings as long as you have it paired with a decent graphics card.

Even a lowly 1 GHz Celeron from 2000 would have run circles around the fastest 486DX from 1990.

Same 10 year difference. So why haven't CPUs got any better?

Attached: intel-sandy-bridge.jpg (1013x1080, 114K)

Other urls found in this thread:

old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/8md90a/pentium_j5005_atom_outperforms_the_legendary_core/
youtu.be/gMFd0aVhVKU?t=442
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600
I meant quad. The Q6600 was a quad core processor.

>Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?
It isn't, though.
>Or that a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?
It isn't either, though.
>You could put a 7 year old processor in a gaming rig and still play the latest games on max settings as long as you have it paired with a decent graphics card.
[citation needed]
>Even a lowly 1 GHz Celeron from 2000 would have run circles around the fastest 486DX from 1990.
>Same 10 year difference. So why haven't CPUs got any better?
They have, not as much though since we're hitting a wall with Moore's Law.

Engineering iterative improvements near the physical limits is much more difficult than it is to build from the very scratch, this is obvious.

Frequency is not scaling as well between each process now. We've already reached the limits of the planar process, and we may be reaching the end of the FinFET process in favor of GAA (FinFET on roids) soon, and even then the performance gains will be much less significant.

The majority of the most major performance improvements, mastering the superscalar architecture, SIMD registers, determining optimal pipeline length, branch prediction/speculative execution, improvements in MMU, etc. had been made in the early years. These days we have to dedicate enormous amounts of resources just to get small, situational improvements in CPU performance.

As far as gaming goes, gaming is moving towards offloading as many resources as possible to the GPU - in most cases GPUs are limited by bandwidth and front-end geometry processing in gaming. Those starved ALUs can be fed physics and other coprocessing work.

Still have 2600k and feel like it's really fast.
Upgraded from i7 920, which is also pretty fast still, probably shouldn't even have upgraded when I did.
Will probably get the highest tier of Zen2 when it comes out though.

>Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?

>Or that a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?

Both answers is no.

I know people here like to hold onto their CPUs and have a special place for the 2500/2600K in their hearts.

In todays money the 2600K launched for ~$350
The Q6600 would be about $330 in todays money

Meanwhile the 8400K is $180


progress is being made, but we just don't seem to be using the extra performance to really notice the gains.

Attached: cpu.jpg (1140x848, 127K)

meant the 8400 not 8400K

Not as crazy that using a computer for daily tasks is still slow even with the latest hardware

>So why haven't CPUs got any better?

everyone stopped using computers.

Attached: Steve-Jobs-holding-original-iPhone.jpg (635x450, 51K)

>why haven't CPUs got any better?
No real competition for Intel, so they just kept releasing the same CPUs over and over again, with minimal improvements each time. AMD finally got competitive again in 2017, so we're seeing some actual progress again.

>tfw own q6600, i7 920 and 6700k

I like them all, and could still use the q6600 as a daily.

Attached: Cute-Girl-No-Finger-Wag-Head-Shake-On-a-Webcam.gif (450x337, 2.25M)

I have a water cooled i7 920 that runs at 4.1 ghz. It runs everything I need, just fine for when I don't feel like being on my laptop. Only thing I have done is upgrade the graphics cards here and there, put a newer SSD in it ( original build in 2009 had an OCZ Solid series drive ). Replacement parts wise, it has a different motherboard and water pump. I figure I will upgrade when DDR4 comes out. I am sure there will be improvements to the NVMe drives and processors by then as well.

>I figure I will upgrade when DDR4 comes out


Uhhhh, I think you're late.

>Core 2 Duo Q6600
>mid range
hahahahaha
no. Current midrange CPUs are ~6 times as fast

> i7-2600k
> high-end
it's barely on par with current low end chips

>So why haven't CPUs got any better?
Never heard of Ryzen?

>it's another retard with a decade year old CPU thinks it has competent performance episode

>>You could put a 7 year old processor in a gaming rig and still play the latest games on max settings as long as you have it paired with a decent graphics card.
>[citation needed]

I'm using a i5 2500k still unclocked and can run pretty much any game I try. I don't play every latest releases though. The only area where I could really justify upgrading is PS3 emulation.

I assume he meant a good CPU.

Good enough to make Intel do the demonstration of overclocking 5GHz.

>everyone stopped using computers.

Fuck. This statement along with the picture of steve jobs looking retarded made me slightly rage inside.

Attached: FUCKING NORMAL FAGS.webm (1920x796, 1.89M)

>Q6600
Why get that when you can get a modded Xeon E5450? They're really great overclockers and are cheap as fuck. Perfect for potato builds.

>iPhone isn't a computer
>t.mactoddler.

But iPhone is a toy.

Pre-SB is pretty rightfully considered garbage at this point, and SB/IB are only still serviceable since AMD screwed the pooch with Bulldozer and Intel hasn't bothered with a real new arch since.

Has-/Broadwell and Zen 1 are around Sandy Bridge+ levels of IPC, so it's only really been meager clock boosts or MOAR COARS.

No need for desperation, user - AMD CPUs may be hard to beat these days, but Intel still remains largely unchallenged when it comes to laptops, small form-factor PCs, and high-end mATX.

>midrange

this is a passmark comparison with the anemic 5w core m in the macbook

Attached: VIRGINQUADVSCHADBOOK.png (598x500, 29K)

It isn't. It isn't competitive and it can't play the latest games at max. Even if it could that wouldn't mean it's sufficient for workstation / rendering / heavy computing tasks.

New midrange is the 1600x and i7 8700

>1600x
2600 cost the same and perform better.

This.

Even ivy bridge-e struggles to keep up with a ryzen 5 1600 which is a $250 CPU.

Core 2 quad is nowhere near mid end. I7 2600k might be low/middle end

And it's made by amd
Fuck off captain obvious I know that I have a 2700x as well

Well, a Core 2 Duo laptop is fine to do office junk.

>IPC is all that matters in a CPU

Neither of those things are true. Plenty of businesses are replacing Sandy Bridge machines right now.

Passmark isn't a reliable cpu benchmark. iGPU affects the score for an example.

>Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?

Mid range? No. Capable as an office or facebook machine. 100% yes. Adorn it with an OpenCL capable GPU and it will even run most of video files fine.

>Or that a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?

High end? No. Mid range. Yes.

>You could put a 7 year old processor in a gaming rig and still play the latest games on max settings as long as you have it paired with a decent graphics card.

Games have been, largely, GPU bound since forever. There are very few games that stress cpu heavily.

>Even a lowly 1 GHz Celeron from 2000 would have run circles around the fastest 486DX from 1990.

Yes. Easy gains were alrady made. Now we hit the clock wall and it seems we are now hitting the IPC wall as well.

>Same 10 year difference. So why haven't CPUs got any better?

They have, just not as much as they did in 1990 to 2000.

do tell

Just more Jewing by Intel. They had the technology to advance processors but without any competition they were happy to just put out a new processor with 2-3% performance gains for ten years. Look how quickly they responded to Ryzen by increasing the core count and IPC across their range. They could have done that years ago but were sitting on the technology for more shekels

Attached: 10Ghzby2011.png (1080x1920, 157K)

>we could have 10GHz in next 10 years
>18 years later we need an extreme liquid cooling to make 5GHz possible

old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/8md90a/pentium_j5005_atom_outperforms_the_legendary_core/

They also finished 14++ by early 2016, but chose to release Skylake-X on 14+ in mid 2017.

that was just marketing bullshit. they knew they wouldn't be reaching 10GHz without some major breakthrough.

Not Jewing, just exaggerating a little. Everybody does it.

Attached: Itanium_Sales_Forecasts.png (1042x708, 36K)

Thank fuck zentel keller

Huh, something happened in 2001 when forecasts suddenly became pessimistic. x86_64?

Nah it was that damn powerpc /s
Amd kicked ass back then but not as hard as now

Nigga this isn't 2013

i3 2120 owner.

Stills more than enough for my needs since I don't play vidya.

Hell my old Athlon 4600+ could work as an office computer if I tossed an SSD in.

Fellow i7 920 fag here from 2008-2015 it was fine until late 2014 then it struggled to keep 65fps minimum at 3.5 ghz
Best CPU ever only one that's aged better is my 1600x

>progress is being made

Grandpa here.

Difference between 1990 era and 2000 era processor is much bigger than whatever happened during last 10 years.

I blame jewtel. Why waste money on development when there is no competition.

It's the modern web that fucks everything up.

Have old pentium pro 180mhz, win7 run reasonably fast on it, modern office runs just fine.

It's when you fire up chrome that everything grinds to a halt.

CPU development has plateaued. Moore's Law is dead. Current improvements on older CPU tech are marginal.

How about we stop making things smaller and just implement a circulatory system moving coolant to groups of transistors inside a larger cpu?

>Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?
no it isn't, not for gaming at least

youtu.be/gMFd0aVhVKU?t=442

Interdasting opinion.

According to that video, there is a 1.5x to 2x performance increase for non-gaming tasks and a ~10% increase in gaming performance (since the GPU does most of the work anyway).

Given that the two processors were released nearly 7 years apart (Q1 2011 vs Q4 2017) and cost exactly the same at launch after inflation is taken into account, that is an absolutely terrible rate of improvement.

I haven't upgraded since 2013

Attached: speczzjpg.jpg (578x463, 61K)

>Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?
>Or that a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 is still considered to be a high-end CPU?

Neither of these is considered mid range nor high-end.

Q6600 is borderline obsolete but usable enough for a lot of people out there that don't do demanding things, and the i7 is considered somewhere between low end and mid range purely because of the 4 extra threads.

Kek, basically this 2-3 frame difference equal to the power consumption difference. I thought newer processors would consume less power tho.

My x58 x5675 overclocked to 4.3 ghz werks fine for me even though it's a bit old.

Exactly.
Especially when comparing the OC'd performance.
My i7 2700K does 5.2GHz with HT enabled so it will creep even closer to that 8700K he has in the benchmark.

And the cost of RAM and motherboard just to upgrade to a new CPU is also a thing I don't want to do either since I already have 24GB DDR3 2400MHz already which would rape my wallet to replace with 24GB+ DDR4.

I will upgrade only if the new gen will offer something 2xxxs don't have. Intel is lazy on the thunderbolt, or fixing specter, which could be the major selling point.

what if website devs get paid by intel to make bloated websites so normies will upgrade their computers when the websites load slowly?

no, it's just the case of (((modern))) web development where a 10MB landing website is considered perfectly fine

Recession hit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

It was even worse before Ryzen (and Intel's response to it in the form of Coffee Lake). Because Intel had no competition, each new generation only improved performance by about 5% or so. This meant that a 7700K was only about 1/3 more powerful than a 2600K despite being released 6 years and 5 generations apart.

Now that AMD is competitive again, I wonder if we might start to see the pace of progress picking back up like the good old days.

Attached: Untitled.png (737x350, 16K)

The lowest Core I3 is at least twice as powerful as a stock Q6600.

A R3 1200 is much more than twice.

Please believe me i have an q8300, gt 220 and recently put a 500gb 850evo in although it runs only on sata 2
The q8300 isnt even enough for browsing, the lack of lvl3 Cache is really noticeable
Also gt220 isnt powerfull enough for 1080p 60fps Youtube

>Does anyone else find it crazy that an Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 from 2008 is still considered to be a capable mid range CPU?
The fuck are you talking about? Even a cheap piece of shit Pentium is better than a core 2 duo.

>mfw upgraded to 1950x from 2x E5450 Xeon

>mfw 100fps increase across the board in all games

Attached: 226.jpg (900x900, 266K)

>Look how quickly they responded to Ryzen by increasing the core count and IPC across their range.
Coffee Lake has exact same IPC as Skylake. Intel won't be increasing their IPC noticeably until they roll out a brand new architecture sometime in 2022 or 2021.

Someone tell me what's the deal with lvl 1,2,3 caches, I don't understand it. Some special programs using them that'll ran faster? Is it related to avx/sse?
All I know is bigger = better

Attached: special_boy.jpg (600x600, 32K)

:\

Attached: 2018-06-10-104043_496x254_scrot.png (496x254, 20K)

No u spastics its memory, but tied to the cpu so its very fast, thousands of times faster then ddr4 ram. Everything thats loading fro. An ssd or even ram will slow down and u will see it, so therefore u need cache

>sandy bridge is still a high-end CPU
What no.

>games
Oh I understand now, I'll remind you that you need to be 18 or older to post here.

I used a core2duo overclocked to 4.5ghz from 2008-2017

played BF4 at 50+fps
played COD at 4k at 50+fps

kinda struggled at BF1 and DayZ thou so I missed out on DayZ but I played WarZ instead that was better game imo.

That thing is on par with some mid to high end cpus nowadays, its not a valid comparison since it was top of the line workstation cpu and you overclocked it.
In short it only loses to some 1700X because it lacks 2 more cores / 4 threads but other than that it comes damn close and in single thread performance it actually reaches the same tier.

this works just fine for me but its 11 years old

Not only that but even though 7700K used DDR4 it wasn't until Intel made the 8700K that RAM speeds truly mattered which really changed things a lot.
My i7 2700K with 2400MHz DDR3 have no chance to keep up to a 8700K with 3600MHz DDR4 in GTAV.

we are obviously talking about games. with multicore performance the improvements are even less

if you got a intel CPU between 2008-2011 and got a highclocked one or OC capable one it will literally last a decade that's the point the OP is trying to make and he is correct it will.

I even got BF1 running at 30fps on my core2duo at 4.5ghz but I ended up killing mobo/cpu trying to push it further.

you will be able to play all the top games on a 2011 cpu till 2021 at like 45fps or so. which is good enough for most people really.

that's impressive. using a 2001 cpu in 2011 games would be unthinkable things have slowed down alot.

intel will literally release processors that are double as fast as 8700k soon just wait. maybe 2020.

I still use a q6600 and its more than enough for internet browsing and gaming. I don't use it much anymore due to the amount of energy that it needs and that my laptop is good enough for internet browsing and only uses like 30watts instead of 130 ish. But yeah, it is a capable CPU and I don't see me upgrading anytime soon.

I have two laptops sitting here. One has an i5-520M, and the other has an i5-3320M. Both 8GB RAM, both have relatively new SSDs. It's like night and day, the 3320M is noticeably better.

>Huh, something happened in 2001 when forecasts suddenly became pessimistic. x86_64?

yes, of course opteron/athlon64 royally fucked Intel's Itanium plans, but even without that things were not going great.

the entire premise of Itanium was to have a compiler statically schedule instruction bundles in machine code rather than use on-die OOO scheduling and retirement, but the compilers never became as good at this as they needed to be, at least not in the first several years and not before x86_64 showed up.

How excited would you have been as an enterprise customer 15+ years ago to move to a new, unproven single-vendor platform that was constantly in a state of "it will be fixed in software soon!"?

>progress was being made

Great grandpa here.

Difference between 1980 era and 1990 era processor is much bigger than whatever happened during the following 10 years.

I blame the theory of diminishing returns because I'm not a fucking retard.

What is this? A troll, a shill or a retard? I honestly can't tell.

Source?

>Q6600
>a capable mid range CPU?
It's literally as fast as a mobile sandy bridge or ivy bridge dual core
That's nowhere near mid range
A i5 2400 is the edge of midrange, especially if you play new titles
Also a 2600k is about mid high range, yes it has hyper threading and four physical cores and great overclockability but it will struggle against newer offering by Intel and AMD

>A i5 2400 is the edge of midrange, especially if you play new titles
I really wouldn't consider something with Pentium performance to be mid range. 2400 is solidly low end, 2500k is borderline, and then only because it's overclockable.

a Q6600 is beaten by current gen's lowest end J series media center Celerons, both in single and multi threaded applications
it's NOT mid end

Related question, why don't we go ham on the moar corez meme? Like Tilera (and their Tile64) did, but they got bought out.
That sounds amazing. Not to sound too future tech, but it would be even better if it could be easily paired with something which is subambient before a heat load is applied.

because making it smaller makes it easier to dissipate heat without exotic cooling solutions and it allows for more powerful mobile devices that non neets actually pay for and make companies money.

Depends on if you consider "range" to be based on new part pricing or application performance. The difference between a 486DX2 66MHz and a 1GHz PIII or T-Bird was insanely vast in just about everything. The difference between an i5 2400 and an i7 8700k is negligible in just about everything.

CPU performance has stagnated and software requirements have stagnated with them. You can still get by just fine on an E8400, which doesn't have any new-part analogue, but I'd consider it to be the low end; and I'd consider new $60 Pentiums that run rings around it, as well as the i5 2400, to be distinctly above the low end.

>Related question, why don't we go ham on the moar corez meme?
Threadripper 32 core Q3 (probably in August), Rome 64 core in Q4 or Q1, I believe. There might also be Cascade Lake 28 core HEDT part in Q4. The next *lake will probably bring 8 cores to the desktop, and Zen 2 might actually see 10 or 12 core mainstream parts. And of course, you can always use GPUs for compute if what you're doing is actually embarrassingly parallel.

The problem with moar cores meme is that well, a lot of things in the userspace just don't scale that well either because the tasks themselves can't be parallelized that well(see Amdahl's law) or because the programs themselves aren't designed to take advantage of having lots of cores.

The 8700k is something like 50% or 60% faster even in worst case scenario, and at least three times as fast in many other things. Historically speaking that's a small difference when you look at their respective ages, but for anyone who actually needs a high-end CPU, that's certainly not negligible.

As for what's low end and what isn't... I can see your point, but I would first and foremost consider low end - mid range - high end designations in the context of CPUs that are currently being made. E8400 might still be acceptable performance for things like web browsing, but it makes no sense to say that anything significantly faster than it can't be low end. It's just that we've progressed to the point where even ultra low end CPUs can deliver acceptable performance in some cases.

>Rome 64 core in Q4 or Q1, I believe

Only 12c*4 has been even close to confirmed for 7nm/Zen2 Epyc.
While it would be hilarious to see AMD 16c*4 right out the door while Intel could barely make 100k 10nm 2c laptop chips in the last 6 months, I wouldn't expect 7nm yields to be perfect right out the gate either on even 12c chips.

i like it. i'm still on lga 775 with an overclocked e5450 and feeling fine.