|
FPGA talk  I implemented a ps/2 keyboard and vga console once. The rest of this is in one ear, out the other 
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
Krailor posted:It looks like Intel is going to start supporting 3 concurrent sockets; up from the 2 they've historically supported (1150/2011)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Since Haswell you don't even need a Xeon for ECC if you're OK settling for dual-core since dual-core Xeons are no longer a thing. I've been eyeing this Lenovo micro-ATX server with an i3-4150 for $190 but haven't quite been able to justify it yet, since my embedded N3150 board is doing great. Only 4 drive bays though which could be an issue for a NAS if a lot of drives are wanted. Thanks for this, I'm thinking real strongly about going with an i3 now (for a NAS build). Roughly the same price as the C2750, and faster especially in single-threaded workloads. Higher TDP though. e: Eh it's still cheaper to go with the Avotons. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I've had a Pentium G4400 for almost a year now and I'm thinking of switching it for a Core i3 or i5. The Core i3 6100 in particular catches my eye, right now it's about £109 ($140?) on ebuyer and seems like a cost-effective choice...but on closer inspection, Ark only points out it has 2 more threads than my Pentium, 3.7 GHz, uses HD Graphics 530, has a very little increase on GMDF, has Hyper Threading and AVX 2.0. They all seem slightly boosted and that's about it...but is it worth upgrading now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:I've had a Pentium G4400 for almost a year now and I'm thinking of switching it for a Core i3 or i5. The Core i3 6100 in particular catches my eye, right now it's about £109 ($140?) on ebuyer and seems like a cost-effective choice...but on closer inspection, Ark only points out it has 2 more threads than my Pentium, 3.7 GHz, uses HD Graphics 530, has a very little increase on GMDF, has Hyper Threading and AVX 2.0. What're you after? An i3 is barely an upgrade from a Pentium, as they're both dual-cores. Is there something that the Pentium you have does't do sufficiently? The minimum next step is an i5, but if you needed 4 cores why did you buy a dual-core less than a year ago?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What're you after? An i3 is barely an upgrade from a Pentium, as they're both dual-cores. Is there something that the Pentium you have does't do sufficiently? I wanted a CPU that was as good as a Core i3 but the ones I found weren't in my price range (I was building a mid-range rig at the time) so the Pentium felt cheap enough to get. I'm willing to go for an i5 like a 6400 (but the clock speed is too slow) or a 6600, but they both have steep prices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Pentium is almost as good as an i3 especially if you won't get much benefit from HT, so you were right about that part. What makes you think that it's insufficient now, though? As you're noting, clock speeds aren't really better on the i5s - the point of them (except the 6600K) is that they have four cores and double the cache to match. If you know that you have four or more threads going and your current processor isn't keeping up, they're where you would want to look. If your application of interest only uses one or two threads though, there's not much farther you can go without paying the i7 premium to get high stock clocks or building a machine that can overclock. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:The Pentium is almost as good as an i3 especially if you won't get much benefit from HT, so you were right about that part. What makes you think that it's insufficient now, though? I think it's insufficient right now because, from what I've been seeing, the standard rig everyone's rocking is usually a mid to high-end Windows 10 desktop with a Core i5 or i7 and at least 8 or 16GB RAM. (I know some folks are still happy with Win 7 with maybe 4/8 GB RAM.) So I've been upgrading my GPU and RAM to keep it up to date, and now I'm only concerned about my CPU. I just want to make sure my PC's decent enough to run games and Adobe CS with no problem for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
There are some games out there that won't run if they don't see four cores. Windows sees the Pentium as 2 and the i3 as 4, even though it's dual core with hyper threading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:I just want to make sure my PC's decent enough to run games and Adobe CS with no problem for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:I wanted a CPU that was as good as a Core i3 but the ones I found weren't in my price range (I was building a mid-range rig at the time) so the Pentium felt cheap enough to get. I'm willing to go for an i5 like a 6400 (but the clock speed is too slow) or a 6600, but they both have steep prices. If you can wait about a month, even though there's very little in the way of performance increases, retailers will likely be eager to clear out their 6xxx CPUs to make way for the Kaby Lakes. I wouldn't expect more than a $50 drop from current pricing, though. Black Friday might see drops of ~$25-30 off current prices, in a bid to clear shelf space before the closeout period. If you do go with an i3 or locked i5, spend a bit more and pair it with a Z170 motherboard. They're available now for under $100 with or without a rebate now, and they offer you an option in 12-18 months of dropping an i5K chip in and extending the life of your build. They also offer far more quality of life upgrades than an H110 or even an H170.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:If you mean AAA games and media creation, and want it to last for years, too, you gotta go a little balls out. Core i7, plenty of RAM and a GTX 1070. I have a 1060 6GB with 16GB RAM, hopefully that should be enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:I think it's insufficient right now because, from what I've been seeing, the standard rig everyone's rocking is usually a mid to high-end Windows 10 desktop with a Core i5 or i7 and at least 8 or 16GB RAM. (I know some folks are still happy with Win 7 with maybe 4/8 GB RAM.) So I've been upgrading my GPU and RAM to keep it up to date, and now I'm only concerned about my CPU. For gaming, you want at least an unlocked i5 (eg 6600K) on a motherboard that supports overclocking (i.e. Z170 for Skylake). 4 real cores is essentially the limit of what games will make effective use of right now. Note that they are expected to use more cores in the future as we move into DX12/Vulkan. For media creation, you can actually make good use of even more cores/threads right now. A 6700K is by no means overkill, nor is a 5820K or a 6800K. Bear in mind that HyperThreading only buys you at most 30% over the equivalent non-hyperthreaded processor, so moving from a Pentium to an i3, or from an i5 to an i7 is not necessarily the double in performance you would expect from the increase in thread count. In many cases the improvement is 0-10%. It tends to be more on productivity tasks, less on games. Frankly it's always hard to predict future-proofing. A Kaby Lake is going to outperform at playing 4K BluRay since it has a hardware decoder for that. For productivity tasks like Photoshop it really depends on what resolutions you work with, but more is better period. Again, a hexacore i7 is not overkill for that stuff. I'd say figure on an unlocked i5 minimum if you expect to use the rig for a significant period of time. For your GPU, the 1070 is really the big league option right now but GPUs aren't future proof, each generation is still making big gains in features and performance. If you aren't literally dying to upgrade right now then I'd strongly consider waiting for Zen to come out. Something in the 5820K/6800K performance class or even 8C16T is going to be much more futureproof and potentially much more affordable in 6-12 months. That's probably the first big price-to-performance increase in a long time (mostly being a price improvement probably). Even if you don't want the AMD product, Intel will probably have to drop prices to compete. BIG HEADLINE posted:If you can wait about a month, even though there's very little in the way of performance increases, retailers will likely be eager to clear out their 6xxx CPUs to make way for the Kaby Lakes. I wouldn't expect more than a $50 drop from current pricing, though. I don't see prices dropping much on Kaby Lake's launch. Intel hasn't dropped prices in forever, just increased performance incrementally. $200 for an x600K and $300 for an x700K are about as good as it ever gets, and you can get those prices right now at MicroCenter. NewEgg and co aren't likely to have significant discounts on Black Friday IMO. Do get the Z-series overclocking motherboard though. That's really a must. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I don't see prices dropping much on Kaby Lake's launch. Intel hasn't dropped prices in forever, just increased performance incrementally. $200 for an x600K and $300 for an x700K are about as good as it ever gets, and you can get those prices right now at MicroCenter. NewEgg and co aren't likely to have significant discounts on Black Friday IMO. Yeah, that's why I said don't plan on anything other than ~$25 off for Black Friday and $50 at the most around Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, that's why I said don't plan on anything other than ~$25 off for Black Friday and $50 at the most around Christmas. I mean I still think that's excessive. I'd say $10 off an i5 and $20 off an i3 at the absolute tops. This does raise a good point though. Junior, do you work retail anywhere that sells Intel products? If so you should be able to get in on their Retail Edge Program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This does raise a good point though. Junior, do you work retail anywhere that sells Intel products? If so you should be able to get in on their Retail Edge Program. No unfortunately, I just check on whatever sites sell Intel, Nvidia, etc. and hope they have a sale or some discount codes available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
6600K's are down to $200 already, what more do you need?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
If you are near a Micro Center they generally have uniquely good prices on Intel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:16
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:If you are near a Micro Center they generally have uniquely good prices on Intel. Their not in the US so Micro Center is a no go. Junior, my advice is if you have a mobo that lets you overclock (Z170) then get an i5-6600k, if you can't OC then a i5-6500 is your best bet, it's 95% as fast as a stock 6600k.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Their not in the US so Micro Center is a no go. UK*
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
That part made sense to me, as in "they're not in the US, so they can't go to Micro Center". HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
There there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:That part made sense to me, as in "they're not in the US, so they can't go to Micro Center".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Thanks for this, I'm thinking real strongly about going with an i3 now (for a NAS build). Roughly the same price as the C2750, and faster especially in single-threaded workloads. Higher TDP though. The Avotons might be a little cheaper up front but you'll be giving up an upgrade path. If you go with an i3 now then in a few years you can switch it out for a cheap used Xeon to get a little more oomph.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Kaby Lake-X seems entirely pointless. I wonder if they're trying to phase out overclocking on the 1151 socket and push unlocked chips up to 2066 only in the next lineup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Prescription Combs posted:Kaby Lake-X seems entirely pointless. I wonder if they're trying to phase out overclocking on the 1151 socket and push unlocked chips up to 2066 only in the next lineup. That's the  suspicion; when the new consumer socket launches with Ice Lake they're putting FIVR back on-chip and no more overclocking on the mainstream socket. All you dirty overclockers need to  up for the larger socket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Krailor posted:That's the The current X99 boards are more expensive than their z170 equivalents, but most of the cost difference is in the CPUs. If the Kaby-X 4 core is price similarly to the 6700k is today, I think that Intel is making the right move with making 2066 the enthusiast/workstation platform and leaving 1151 for consumer and entry level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
It looks like we already know that both X299 and Z270 chipsets are going to exist, so I'm not sure if they will limit overclocking entirely to the HEDT platform yet. I don't think it would be a huge loss as long as the chip price doesn't go up much considering that higher volume sales on X299 boards will bring down prices, but it's also unclear how memory channels would be handled in that case if the higher-end chips were still going to have more than 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:It looks like we already know that both X299 and Z270 chipsets are going to exist, so I'm not sure if they will limit overclocking entirely to the HEDT platform yet. I don't think it would be a huge loss as long as the chip price doesn't go up much considering that higher volume sales on X299 boards will bring down prices, but it's also unclear how memory channels would be handled in that case if the higher-end chips were still going to have more than 2. It's not something you have to worry about anytime soon. The soonest they'd probably do it would be Ice Lake in 2019(?).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
I'm not really sure what Intel's thinking here: http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-core-i3-7350k-cpu/ Yay for an overclockable i3, sure...but an unlocked dual core with Hyperthreading...when for $50 more (and perhaps $30 more in a month) you could have a 6600K with four physical cores. ~idgi~
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm not really sure what Intel's thinking here: http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-core-i3-7350k-cpu/ I'd rather have an unlocked Pentium back in the lineup (ala G3258) than an unlocked i3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm not really sure what Intel's thinking here: http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-core-i3-7350k-cpu/ Some  fans can't afford four cores:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNQRqAoT-2c Can you break a $1000?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm not really sure what Intel's thinking here: http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-core-i3-7350k-cpu/ dual cores should be able to reach higher overclocks. so if someone's goal is to just have super high single-threaded performance then it might be the way to go
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'd rather have an unlocked Pentium back in the lineup (ala G3258) than an unlocked i3. I'm not sure why, most modern games tend to either really, really want or outright require at least 4 threads. The G3258 was good for emulation but that's about it and you should be able to hit the same clocks with an unlocked i3 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:I'm not sure why, most modern games tend to either really, really want or outright require at least 4 threads. The G3258 was good for emulation but that's about it and you should be able to hit the same clocks with an unlocked i3 anyway. Honestly? That's the fault of lazy programmers. Hyperthreading isn't much faster than no hyperthreading in most games. At best it's 30% faster per core, and often it's 0-10%. Typically on the low end for gaming. Having 2 extra cores is 100% faster per core and if you can't live without 4 threads you also can't really get away with scheduling them on only 2 real cores - hence why I say it's mostly lazy programmers who are just checking if(numThreads < 4) fail; - if you really need 4 threads you should be kicking the i3 users out too. The G3258 was great for what it was. An unlocked i3 is only going to be 30% faster than an equivalent unlocked Pentium (that same hyperthreaded bonus) - at more than twice the price. The unlocked i5 is the next actual step up for gaming. The same logic honestly applies past 4 cores too - if you can actually utilize 8 threads, you will be better off scheduling those 8 threads onto a 6C12T than a 4C8T. The 6700K is not really a good purchase either, if you only want to game then a 6600K is usually just as good and if you can utilize threads then the 5820K is almost as good in 4 threads and faster than the 6700K once more threads come into play. I would love it if there was an unlocked HEDT i5. I would be all over a 6C6T or a 8C8T. Of course it doesn't make any sense for Intel to offer that right now since anyone who cares will just buy a 5820K/6800K, but mostly hyperthreading is a waste of money and you are better off funnelling the money into more actual cores or your GPU instead of trying to schedule twice as much on one core. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
The difference between 2c/2t and 2c/4t on many games is a difference between wildly inconsistent fps and playability. This is especially noticeable with something like GTAV, but more games are showing that, for whatever the reason, they do perform substantially better with 4 threads even if two of them are virtual. Maybe if they coded the games differently the results would be different, but the reality is that 4 threads has become the standard. Edit: should mention that I do think the unlocked i3 is pretty absurdly priced and I don't think that the value is there, I'm only making an argument for the extra usability that comes from a 2c/4t CPU. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:The difference between 2c/2t and 2c/4t on many games is a difference between wildly inconsistent fps and playability. This is especially noticeable with something like GTAV, but more games are showing that, for whatever the reason, they do perform substantially better with 4 threads even if two of them are virtual. Then buy a 4-core processor. Running 4 threads on 2 cores sucks and will always suck because there's not enough processing hardware there. You will never, ever get more than a 30% improvement in actual throughput even in a totally optimal scenario. This is a simple fact of life. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/133121-maximized-performance-comparing-the-effects-of-hyper-threading-software-updates Maybe if the unlocked i3 was closer to $100 it would be more appealing. When it costs $160 or $170, that's only like $50 cheaper than buying an unlocked i5 and you're massively better off with the i5 in reality. It's a tiny fraction of your total system cost - practically a tiny fraction of the cost of just the processor - and makes a huge difference. Hyperthreading as a feature is pretty close to worthless unless you're already at the apex of CPU performance. A faster processor is going to win out over the fancy tricks. It's the CPU equivalent of SLI. It doesn't make any sense to SLI 1060s and it really doesn't make sense to hyperthread i3s given the pricing involved. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
You're assuming a perfectly distributed load. You can't just parallelize a game into equal threads like you can with 3d and video. Here's an example game's threads: Main thread AI Physics Sound So it is 4 different threads, but they are not equal. Another job might be decompressing files or talking to the network. They're just not all going to be going at full speed all the time. Having 2c/4 might allow you to squeeze in a smaller job without needing the power of an entire extra core. Like another said, the "small improvement" that the difference gives you is enough to tip the scale from unplayable to playable. LRADIKAL fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Jago posted:So it is 4 different threads, but they are not equal. Another job might be decompressing files or talking to the network. They're just not all going to be going at full speed all the time. Having 2c/4 might allow you to squeeze in a smaller job without needing the power of an entire extra core. Like another said, the "small improvement" that the difference gives you is enough to tip the scale from unplayable to playable. Then you can have more aggressive thread preemption. Again, when it comes down to it, the actual performance increase is only 30%. Any actual increase in usability beyond that factor is either a bottleneck or a programming error somewhere along the way. In large part these are gamedev/OSdev errors. Yes, you can buy your way out of it, but spending an extra $50 solves the problem forever as far as utilization is concerned. An extra 5% performance is not what is taking GTA:V from unplayable on a faster-clocked Haswell G3258 to a slower-clocked i3 Skylake. Not every program is going to perform better on a higher clocked 2C2T, but if your task is performing more than 30% more poorly on a 2C2T than a 2C4T then it is entirely your fault as a programmer. And lots of programmers do actually suck - which is why you spend the extra $50 and buy the CPU that is executing on 4 real cores instead of 2 real cores and 2 fake cores. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
What's the performance difference between a C2D Conroe and a Skylake Pentium?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:51
|
|