4 ms·
Well this is the problem with intel. I'm typing this on a 5930K. A machine that happy overclocks to an all core 4.5Ghz without even bumping the voltage. I run i
by StillBored 6y ago
Well this is the problem with intel. I'm typing this on a 5930K. A machine that happy overclocks to an all core 4.5Ghz without even bumping the voltage. I run it with custom turbo stops (minimum clock rate is now its previous 3.7Ghz factory turbo) up to around 4.7 with a liquid cooler.
Back when broadwell came out, I looked at upgrading just the CPU, but clock for clock it didn't add anything, so I didn't. Then intel changed the socket, effectively stranding me. So every year or so it gets a new GPU, faster NVMe, etc but the CPU is still a 5930k.
I did something similar with an AM2 motherboard, but AMD kept releasing cores that were backwards compatible to that socket, and after they stopped I went another generation before swapping it. Something like 8 years with the same motherboard (and in the end I was running a CPU that wasn't even officially supported on it) and copy of windows XP.
I don't really mind spending the money on faster hardware, but I really hate spending weeks stabilizing a complete motherboard/gpu/drivers, installing applications, etc. If I could plug something like the i7-10700K into this motherboard I would buy it right now.
Bottom line, I think intel is shooting themselves in the foot by changing the motherboard socket again. Sure people will buy it, but there is a subset of real enthusiasts that might have just upgraded a early low/midrange skylake for one of these newer higher end ones. Instead of being a $300-400 upgrade, its a new motherboard, ram, etc. So they might as well just buy an AMD.