[TT] Leaked slides gives us details about upcoming Haswell-EP - Page 5

Originally Posted by lordikon 

I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you mean they'll charge a premium for the higher-performance product (CPUs)? That's pretty standard, for any company, in any industry.

Originally Posted by lordikon 

There are plenty of other uses for CPUs than video games, and Intel is not making most of its money on PC gamers.

Originally Posted by lordikon 

Sure, but my original response was to someone saying 6-core/12-thread CPUs aren't needed for gaming, and my point was that those chips weren't intended for gamers anyway.

Originally Posted by SchmoSalt 

These current chips aren't good for multi-threaded environments. I happen to run in a heavily multi-threaded environment, especially when I'm really pushing my computer. When I'm really pushing my computer I am running a game which takes up at least 2 threads plus a server that takes up at least 2 threads. This doesn't include other background processes that run and take up a respectable amount of CPU themselves. By default I am held back by my lack of cores.
Most of the games that I run are of high quality and use at least 2 threads under the hood. Some use more than 2 threads. It's funny how you say multi-threaded games and applications are poorly optimized. I remember this being an argument against buying a Q6600 back in 2007. People said that multi-threaded apps were rare or poorly optimized so a Core 2 Duo with higher IPC was a better buy. In the end it turned out that the Core 2 Quads were a much better buy than the Core 2 Duos. The Core 2 Duos were quickly rendered obsolete by multi-threaded apps and games. Meanwhile the higher core count Core 2 Quads stayed relevant long after the Core 2 Duos were rendered obsolete.
Like I said before I am already outgrowing 4 cores. Implementing HT is only a bandaid solution. The only way to make significant multi-threaded performance gains is to increase the core count. I like to think of it being like putting v-tech on a 4 cylinder versus having a 8 cylinder. That 4 cylinder may have more performance per cylinder but that 8 cylinder has much more performance overall.
It isn't fair to compare AMD's BD "8 core" chips to Intel's 4 core chips. They aren't even real 8 core chips. They're just 4 core chips with 2 sets of certain components per core. That is in no way a true 8 core. That is one of the reasons why the IPC is worse than the AMD generation before that. Comparing those two chips proves nothing.
Suggesting that I lay out $1000 on a Xeon just to get the core count I need is insane. That's what Intel wants. Intel wants people like me who need that extra multi-threading performance to shell out outrageous amounts of money for it. This is what having a monopoly does. With AMD out of the game Intel can charge whatever they want for the innovative chips and no one will be able to stop them.
If they do end up not upping the core count across the board the mainstream chips will quickly become obsolete just as the Core 2 Duos did. More and more apps are moving towards multi-threading. A talented software architect can make a very efficient multi-threaded program. We will start to see a lot of 3+ threaded apps start to appear in the near future.

Originally Posted by DarkBlade6 

Say the guy with a Core2Quad
Upgrade to a Core i7 3770K and you will delete that post for sure.

Originally Posted by shiftwig113 

A lot of games i play use more than just 4 threads. I'm quite sick of the "games only use x amount of cores blah blah blah" anyone remember the C2D vs C2Q argument back in the day?
"But you don't need a quad core since most games don't use more than 2 cores"
Just stop go away. games are going to start being more and more threaded. Max Payne 3 for example uses all 12 threads on my cpu at around 60%+ usage across and i get solid framerates at max settings. and this trend will continue. I'm willing to bet more and more games will start to use more threads since console ports are going to get beefier due to next gen hardware (Xbox 720, PS4) in the next two years.

Originally Posted by shiftwig113 

A lot of games i play use more than just 4 threads. I'm quite sick of the "games only use x amount of cores blah blah blah" anyone remember the C2D vs C2Q argument back in the day?
"But you don't need a quad core since most games don't use more than 2 cores"
Just stop go away. games are going to start being more and more threaded. Max Payne 3 for example uses all 12 threads on my cpu at around 60%+ usage across and i get solid framerates at max settings. and this trend will continue. I'm willing to bet more and more games will start to use more threads since console ports are going to get beefier due to next gen hardware (Xbox 720, PS4) in the next two years.

Originally Posted by shiftwig113 

A lot of games i play use more than just 4 threads. I'm quite sick of the "games only use x amount of cores blah blah blah" anyone remember the C2D vs C2Q argument back in the day?
"But you don't need a quad core since most games don't use more than 2 cores"
Just stop go away. games are going to start being more and more threaded. Max Payne 3 for example uses all 12 threads on my cpu at around 60%+ usage across and i get solid framerates at max settings. and this trend will continue. I'm willing to bet more and more games will start to use more threads since console ports are going to get beefier due to next gen hardware (Xbox 720, PS4) in the next two years.

Originally Posted by trumpet-205 

That is partly true, but the trend is growing very slowly. Take FSX for example (since I don't know how MP3 works), this game can utilize up to 64 threads, but the performance difference between 4 threads and 64 threads is 0. Games themselves are very difficult to be parallel because for most part, you can't chop them into multiple pieces and run them in the same time. You also have to account that for every thread supported it became more complicated. Complicated gaming = higher developing cost.
Even though PS3 has 7 usable cores for the most part it only uses 3 threads (one for gaming, one for background, and one for FP).
Trend is growing, but at a very slow pace. Which is why CPU like i3-2100 are 960T plenty for today's gaming.

Originally Posted by trumpet-205 

That is partly true, but the trend is growing very slowly. Take FSX for example (since I don't know how MP3 works), this game can utilize up to 64 threads, but the performance difference between 4 threads and 64 threads is 0. Games themselves are very difficult to be parallel because for most part, you can't chop them into multiple pieces and run them in the same time. You also have to account that for every thread supported it became more complicated. Complicated gaming = higher developing cost.
Even though PS3 has 7 usable cores for the most part it only uses 3 threads (one for gaming, one for background, and one for FP).
Trend is growing, but at a very slow pace. Which is why CPU like i3-2100 are 960T plenty for today's gaming.