4 ms·

Five years? Make that ten; the progress since Sandy Bridge has been incredibly slow. If you take a Sandy Bridge i5 or i7 CPU and turn off the mitigations, it's

Five years? Make that ten; the progress since Sandy Bridge has been incredibly slow. If you take a Sandy Bridge i5 or i7 CPU and turn off the mitigations, it's still within spitting distance of the current i5/i7 models. The only reason I changed out my old i5-2500K two years ago was that the motherboard had finally failed. It was holding up fine with any software I was running, including modern games from that time such as Doom 2016. Intel really has got to be in an internal panic. The last time AMD pushed Intel this hard, Intel went to extraordinary tactics to push AMD out of the market. I wouldn't be surprised if pushing their workers well beyond safety limits was in the current playbook.

mikepurvis 6y ago
That's a good point; past a certain point I think it's less about the single threaded performance and more about interconnect constraints— slower RAM speeds, slower PCIe lanes, slower SATA, USB, etc. There's a funny series of LTT videos from this past fall where they bring up a 2008 Skulltrail mobo and try running some modern games on it, with and without overclocking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNo7qoLRtkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNo7qoLRtkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl7Dx895ND4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl7Dx895ND4
willis936 6y ago
Intel really made their own bed on this one. Anyone with a few grad classes and some interest could tell you what changes to make at each generation to capture more performance. Intel consistently under-delivered on those fronts. It was not because they did not have the technical knowhow, because that part is easy. The people making decisions at Intel were not interested in giving customers the same or better value for their money without competition. Competition came and their pants were still down. Intel's pants continue to stay down since it takes so long to pull them up. They got greedy and they're paying for it.
breakbread 6y ago
Memory bandwidth is a big limitation with the older i5/i7s, at least when trying to pair them with anything beyond say a gtx 970.
caycep 6y ago
I found an ITX board for that chip from Asus or Asrock...it's still living as extra workstation for the office!

mikepurvis 6y ago

That's a good point; past a certain point I think it's less about the single threaded performance and more about interconnect constraints— slower RAM speeds, slower PCIe lanes, slower SATA, USB, etc. There's a funny series of LTT videos from this past fall where they bring up a 2008 Skulltrail mobo and try running some modern games on it, with and without overclocking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNo7qoLRtkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNo7qoLRtkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl7Dx895ND4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl7Dx895ND4

willis936 6y ago

Intel really made their own bed on this one. Anyone with a few grad classes and some interest could tell you what changes to make at each generation to capture more performance. Intel consistently under-delivered on those fronts. It was not because they did not have the technical knowhow, because that part is easy. The people making decisions at Intel were not interested in giving customers the same or better value for their money without competition. Competition came and their pants were still down. Intel's pants continue to stay down since it takes so long to pull them up. They got greedy and they're paying for it.

breakbread 6y ago

Memory bandwidth is a big limitation with the older i5/i7s, at least when trying to pair them with anything beyond say a gtx 970.

caycep 6y ago

I found an ITX board for that chip from Asus or Asrock...it's still living as extra workstation for the office!