|
mobby_6kl posted:I know I've previously said here that Sandy doesn't offer enough benefit over C2Q processors for me to bother and that I'd wait for Ivy, but now that it's almost here... are there any details on Haswell? If there was any bottleneck in my setup, I thought it was mostly the platter storage (system drive just died) and graphics (stock fan just died). So if I replace both of those, I'd buy myself quite a bit more time. Have anyone given any thought to the next "tock"? There are a bunch of architectural details on Haswell available, but the general gist is that Intel is targeting portables even more aggressively with its design. From what I remember, Intel is pushing to get Haswell down to a 10W thermal envelope, so a lot of the optimizations will be in that direction. I don't expect Haswell to be drastically different from IVB - just a continued evolution of the concepts Intel has already introduced. That said, I'd base any upgrade decisions based on the ability of your current rig. I certainly wouldn't put off a CPU upgrade by 18 months based on a 'what-if' if your Core 2 is getting long in the tooth.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:By the by, anyone concerned about competition and innovation in light of AMD's restructuring might take some solace if you read up on Joseph Schumpeter's theories of monopoly and innovation. In a nutshell, he said that monopolies can drive innovation because they have large amounts of capital which can be invested into novel research. As semiconductor design is a highly investment-driven industry, it's a perfect place for such a market dynamic. Also, Intel's biggest competition these days is from its own legacy products. Unlike AT&T, Intel makes money by selling widgets, not services, so if they don't make new chips compelling enough to warrant an upgrade, then they don't generate revenue. I suspect that in a vacuum of viable competition we'll see the rate of improvements slow, but not by much. Intel still has to make vastly improved CPUs year over year to fuel growth, so unless Intel's shareholders want to settle for lower revenue and higher margin (and risk getting mauled on the low end by ARM/WOA), I don't see this changing. Where AMD was useful was that they could keep Intel from solely dictating the direction of the market. Had AMD imploded a decade ago, I strongly suspect we'd all be running IA64 CPUs right now. Could be worse, really. But here's a question: How many of you have greatly slowed the rates of your own CPU upgrades? I used to get a new computer/CPU every 2-3 years, but my current i7 920 @ 3.6Ghz has provided enough performance that I feel it'll be until Haswell (or its death) before I upgrade. Anyone else finding themselves in a similar boat?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Doesn't the "rise" (well, they're not exactly taking over from dedicated GPU's yet of course) of APU's necessitate more bandwidth eventually? The rumor on the street is that Haswell will have a large on-die cache (64MB?) in the form of eDRAM to be used as an interposer to help alleviate some of the traffic over the DRAM bus. If the rest of the rumors are true - going from 12 EUs on die to 40 - then Intel may have to make drastic changes to the memory hierarchy to keep them all fed with data.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 15:07
|
|