Will there literally ever be a reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge for the average desktop user? Are CPUs over?

>basing your CPU purchase decisions on a microbenchmark that runs entirely in the cache
Are people this retarded?

if all you does is facebook and excel equivalent for the next 50 yrs then yes.

CPUs from 2003 were laughably obsolete in 2011 when X79 hit the market, yet here we are eight years later and CPUs from 2011 are still perfectly viable for any desktop task. You can even grab an overclockable octa-core Xeon for the same socket.

>Fact is a 2700X with 3200 CL14 RAM will outperform an i7-8700K using cheap 2400 CL16 RAM
and the net cost to you will be very similar due to the expense of the RAM for poozen.

Not to mention intel still being better at AVX workloads due to AMDs design of splitting 256-bit AVX instructions into two 128-bit AVX pipelines instead of Intels approach with a native 256-bit AVX pipeline.

By zen 3 4GHz hexa-core processors will tank down to $50 brand new.

>overclockable octa-core Xeon for the same socket
lol don't even try to pretend that would be relevant for anything but heavily threaded tasks.

You can't get the single core performance high enough on Sandybridge with 8 cores, even the hex cores were stretching the cooling limitations and motherboard VRMs just running stock turbo clocks.

WRONG, AGAIN. 3200 CL14 is only ~$100 extra compared to 2400 CL16.

B450 MB + 2700X + 2x8 GB 3200 CL12 RAM + free stock cooler = $500

B360 MB + i7-8700K + 2x8 GB 2400 CL16 RAM + tripple 360mm fan AIO = $750

You save $250 with AMD, get better performance, and can upgrade to 12/16-core 5GHz zen 2 processors when they come out.

>+ free stock cooler
>+ tripple 360mm fan AIO
lmfao

Or like a sane person, either build will have an NH-D15.

The motherboard prices are near identical, you don't want the cheapest board possible, and in both cases the decent boards are around $80-100.

There is a ~$70-80 price difference on the CPU themselves, and as you said, $100 more for the better RAM.

So same price MB, same price cooler (who the fuck uses the stock cooler on a 2700x? God damn AMD shills I swear), $100 difference in RAM and $70-80 difference in CPU price.

Again, the net cost is identical.

Also, good job completely ignoring the AVX portion of the argument. Since you know AMD has no answer back for that until Zen 3.

?

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Overclocking the hexa-core SB-E chips to 4.6-4.7GHz was trivial, and you could easily push them towards 5GHz if you didn't mind using voltage that would degrade the chip eventually. Motherboards weren't a limitation at all. What a strange claim to make, given how easily it's proven wrong. A 3970X at 4.7GHz/1.4V consumes ~195W under non-AVX load. Hardly outrageous by any standard, let alone compared to X299 housefires.

And yes, you can comfortably push 1680 v2 up to the same sort of clocks too.

Attached: 1680 v2.png (1920x1200, 991K)

Lmfao, delusional fuck.

What the fuck do you think the silicon lottery is?

You're just as bad as the AMD cucks that claim every 2600x can hit 4Ghz all core with under 1.3v

>excel
>not COBOL

Ah, doubling down on your retardation I see. It must suck to run into someone who can actually prove your bullshit wrong in real-time. And my 3970X is no "golden sample" - it's a very average chip. Many can do 4.8GHz at lower voltage than I need for 4.7GHz.

Note the very reasonable temperatures using an NH-D15 with just one fan, despite hitting over 1.4V. Cooling was never, ever an issue with SB-E. As I said, you could comfortably go up to the kind of voltages that would degrade the chip (>1.45V) and have no problems with temperatures outside of AVX.

Attached: hurr durr.png (2560x1440, 342K)

>1 minute test
>already reaching almost 80c

yeah, that's great /s

Do a 15 hour encode.

I doubt that thing was even stability tested for more than 30 minutes.

>gaming
>quad core
Sweetie it's not 2012

It was stability tested for twelve hours using non-AVX Prime95 just recently actually, as I upgraded my RAM to 2400MHz (for next to nothing, suck it DDR4tards). Warmest core hit 83 degrees. I'm obviously not going to sit here and run it again for the benefit of some retard who got called out and is now furiously deflecting and modifying his "argument" to try and save face.

Don't come at the king unless you have something, kid. Next I'll have to sit you down permanently using all the Jewtube videos of 1680 v2 overclocking (all golden samples of course!)

Attached: cohle.gif (245x298, 2.41M)

>my singular CPU example is obviously the average of what ANY CPU of this type can achieve.

Hey bud, fantasy land isn't real life.

As we already established, my 3970X is average at best. Needing 1.4V for 4.7GHz is nothing to shout about. The actual golden samples can do that at 1.35V and 4.8GHz at

>As we already established
nothing was established, unless you think you saying something and providing zero evidence to back it up is somehow "established"

Again, fantasy land.

>video games benefit from more cpu cores
Sweetie, youre retarded.

He's not taking exception to your CPU performance and clocks, he's taking exception to you trying to play that as ALL CPUs of that type will hit similar performance figures.
And I have to agree with him, your CPU is far from average, maybe it's not the golden chip of golden chips, but it's at least in the top %.
The 5820k for example, a 6 core 12 thread CPU of the Haswell-E generation.
Less than 13% of 5820k's could hit 4.7Ghz @ 1.344v.

You're claiming a 3790X, a similar 6 core 12 thread CPU from Sandybridge-E, and they're ALL capable of 4.6Ghz+? Come on. You have to realize that's bullshit. You simply got a great performing chip.

Why do Windows users need a GUI for lscpu?

Idk, I'm still running a Bloomfield cpu. Zen 2 will be the first time I've considered upgrading since then

they're called winbabbies for a reason

>silicon lottery
That's an overclockable Xeon processor. 4.6Ghz for an IB xeon is taking it easy. The powerhog 32nm Westmeres can do 4.4+

Power usage

electricity is cheap, goy

Imagine if we had functioning Fusion reactors and the pricing for power became reduced by a factor of a thousand. How would Noseberg ever cope?

Your 2600K is finally becoming outdated. Productivity tends to take advantage of more cores so the 9900K and the upcoming 3700X will outclass it. The 9900K and possibly the 3600X/3700X will beat it in single core which means it gets outclassed in >60fps gaming. It took nearly a decade but that old fuck is finally on its way out. If you don't mind the electricity use you can always turn it into a home server after you upgrade.

If you like using an old, slow and outdated cpu no. I'm not saying it's a bad thing though; some people can just live with having to 'settle'.

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (417x419, 127K)

If you are a developer, a 8-core/16-thread CPU will compile much faster than that old piece of shit.

Hahahahahaha, paying all that money and enduring housefire power consumption for something only 10% faster than a stock 2700X. I guess some people have to settle for a double digit IQ.

Attached: poo.png (403x402, 18K)

Yes, if you want to do modern encodes/encryption
No if you just want to play vidya

there are now multiple games that do....

lol what, a 8700k demolishes that thing in any real benchmark. That score must be from before they reworked their shit or something like that.

>that fucking theme
You must be at least 18 years of age to post on this board.

is this 2006

Yeah, I was given an old Asus p5kpl-am, I bought a core2quad q9400 and 4gb of ddr2 for cheap on ebay, installed elementary, and I have to say that that pc is more than enough for general home use. Of course it's not good enough for gaming, but just for fun I did some audio encoding and it's pretty decent.
95% of normies don't need more than that, for sure.

That's clearly the latest version of the program though, because that's when they added the benchmark selection dropdown.

Wrong quote, meant for

>a 3960x OC'ed to 4.6GHz scores 1189 vs 1558 of a stock 8700k on Cinebench R15
CPU-Z is full of shit.
youtu.be/XZhkBokURb4
youtu.be/oguLMd8eZCo

>"""""stock""""" 8700K running with MCE enabled
A stock 8700K without motherboard fuckery gets just over 1400 points. What a demolition, seven years in the making. Truly Intel have brought the noise!

Attached: untitled-2.png (682x922, 46K)

Definitely doesn't make any sense.
cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-3970X-vs-Intel-i7-8700K/1799vs3098
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3970X/3937vsm6794

>but you can't use this feature!
Still scoring 20% better than this piece of shit that was heavily overclocked from 3.3GHz to 4.6Ghz. Imagine head to head.

if you overclock a 8700k to 5ghz you can get 1650 easily

This too. Sandy's are no match for today CPUs, even with that OC. Even midrange Ryzens perform better than them.

The reason for upgrade will be motherboard capacitors leaking

$80-100 boards are low end. You need to pay $150-200 for decent boards

4 core 4.5GHz Sandy Bridge is still good enough for most tasks.

I still use an Ivy Bridge processor. Would I actually notice a difference in daily usage (browsing etc)?

Different user here, I recently bought a used system for 250, this thing overclocks to 4.7 with only a multiplier change
SB-E chips are pretty amazing if you can find one for cheap

Attached: 232019.jpg (1224x689, 190K)

This, single core procesors are enough xDDD

You guys are all so fast.

Attached: Clipboard03.png (754x402, 37K)

>31 Aug, 2016 9:32
>Intel Israel development chief Ran Senderovitz says the 7th generation core processor is up to 19% faster than its predecessor.
>He added, "Moreover, if you have computer at home that is four or five years old and then bought a PC with a seventh generation processor you'd see an improvement in speed of up to 70% in routine tasks."

Why are they so full of it?

Attached: 494B6A28-34A5-4C11-A466-846941618AED.png (806x804, 42K)

The 8700K has a higher clock speed by default, dumbdumb. You're already comparing them head to head. It's hilarious that Inturds think that a 20% improvement in seven years, after multiple socket changes, is something to crow about, whilst Sandy Bridge owners get the vast majority of your performance of your shiny new $400 CPU with "obsolete" hardware from 2011. Sad!

They just sing to the melody of jewish piano.

Newer games will use more than core, inform yourself you retard.

Holy shit, do you have brain damage? If even a stock 8700k performs better, with overclock it simply leaves it behind with ease. Don't forget any 8700k can overclock to 4.8/4.9ghz, meanwhile that Sandy is almost exploding to maintain a 1ghz+ overclock that can't even surpass a 8700k at 3.7ghz.

>AMDrones shitting on Intel for barely upgrading Sandy Bridge
>forgets the fact that AMDrones waited for 10 years for Ryzen and it wasn't even that good for its first release

Works on my machine.

Attached: 1538115979531.png (401x401, 18K)

I have a reason, my cpu and/or motherboard with a 2500k died a couple months ago :( It served me so well since 2011 so almost 8 freaking years, longer than any other system I've had I think. Puts me so out of date with what hardware's out there now though are sites like logical increments good?

You underestimate the power of javascript pajeets.

mmm juicy benchmarks

Attached: i9.jpg (396x396, 56K)

Honestly it isn't even that Sandy bridge is that incredibly good it's more that there hasn't been much improvement it since then. I am sure that some revolutionary stuff will happen in the coming years. I think I will finally upgrade when 7nm comes out

>3000 series
Wasn't that Ivy Bridge?

>for gaming
Leave

>2020 - 1
>literally the only reason for me to change my 3570k would be my mobo dying and event at that point I would just get some chink xeon + mobo

CPUs are literally dead

Attached: 1547830859975.jpg (1280x720, 67K)

sit

Attached: Capture.png (403x402, 15K)

No, HEDT 3000-series was Sandy Bridge. Ivy was 4000. They always arrive later and Intel aren't going to let people think they're worse than the current mainstream platform based on the series name. Just like Skylake-X is now both 7000 and 9000-series chips, since they basically gave up on X299 and just re-released the same CPUs with solder and a bit more cache enabled.

The lies, jesus.

You literally can't play battlefield 5 on 4 cores.

Sandy bridge is trash and modern ryzens have twice or more the cache.

Attached: Untitled.png (1404x822, 91K)

>unironically referring to one of those garbage THIS ONE'S [PERCENT] BETTER THAN THIS ONE BASED ON THE ALIGNMENT OF THE MOON sites
Damn, objective benchmarks absolutely BTFO!

>You literally can't play battlefield 5 on 4 cores.
Oh look, you absolutely can, at over 100fps even on a 4c4t chip.

>Sandy bridge is trash and modern ryzens have twice or more the cache
>cache
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Imagine basing your processor rankings on fucking CACHE of all things. You're also objectively wrong. The 3970X has 15MB L3 cache, which is the same amount as a Poozen octa-cores, meaning it literally has more cache per core. The 1680 v2 octa-core has 25MB L3, putting any Poozen below 12-core Threadshitters to shame.

Retarded AYYYYYYYYYYMD drones BTFO once again!

Attached: untitled-1.png (678x482, 37K)

i9 10990k when

u ok m8

>what is ccx latency

Never better than when sending some Pajeet packing.

D-Don't mention that! It's n-not real!!! If you just buy some inexpensive DDR7-9200, Poozen comes within 5% of a stock 9600K!

Attached: aussie faggot.jpg (723x626, 86K)

Likely no until CPU architecture changes.

SPOILER

>You literally can't play battlefield 5 on 4 cores.
???

youtube.com/watch?v=S-ttBLfpxeE&t=5s

It's just some AMDead fanboy pushing the MOAR CORES meme as per usual.

you seem to invested into pushing pozzed inturd cpoos, i smell buyer's remorse

Cope.