Be a Supporter!

9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!?

  • 608 Views
  • 18 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Painbringer
Painbringer
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 60
Animator
9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 08:13 PM Reply

That's what the newly released 3.5GHz Intel Core i7 2700K processor is, compared to the older, and physically identical, 3.4GHz Core i7 2600K processor of nine months back.

And since both models have an unlocked multiplier, you could just raise the speed of the 2600K to that of a 2700K.

Man, I so miss the days when processor performance doubled every few months.

Thoughts?

Garage
Garage
  • Member since: Jun. 19, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Gamer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 08:18 PM Reply

Just use the unlocked multiplier to double the speed yourself.

9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!?

Painbringer
Painbringer
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 60
Animator
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 11:22 PM Reply

At 10/25/11 08:18 PM, Garage wrote: Just use the unlocked multiplier to double the speed yourself.

Too bad you need liquid helium cooling to get anywhere near those numbers.

But It is the lack of competition that keeps Intel from moving forward.

AnalPenguinFarming
AnalPenguinFarming
  • Member since: Aug. 23, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 11:24 PM Reply

I don't understand what any of those numbers mean.


Yea, I farm Anal Penguins. Do something about it.

BBS Signature
dmansland
dmansland
  • Member since: Mar. 23, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 11:28 PM Reply

At first I thought this was a pregnancy joke. I read the post and feel like a retard for not understanding any of that


PSN ID: DMANSLAND, Wii number: too lazy to look up, Manliness level: GODLY

BBS Signature
akmeteor
akmeteor
  • Member since: Jul. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Gamer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 25th, 2011 @ 11:31 PM Reply

At 10/25/11 11:22 PM, Painbringer wrote:
At 10/25/11 08:18 PM, Garage wrote: Just use the unlocked multiplier to double the speed yourself.
Too bad you need liquid helium cooling to get anywhere near those numbers.

But It is the lack of competition that keeps Intel from moving forward.

My dad actually did a job for them in June in Israel. Got a sweet i7 for free because the label was misprinted. It said i5 on the processor itself. They do actually treat their employees nice, but they really should work on trying to make a 4.0Ghz.


Well.

Shit.

Painbringer
Painbringer
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 60
Animator
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 01:15 AM Reply

At 10/25/11 11:31 PM, akmeteor wrote: they really should work on trying to make a 4.0Ghz.

At least they're getting closer with each new release.

Even if it's just 100 to 133 megahertz at a time.

mariomusicmaker1
mariomusicmaker1
  • Member since: Mar. 9, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 01:37 AM Reply

Just wait till the new transistor tec starts being used, we will see 12 cores in the next year, for the same price as a hex core now hopefully.


I Stopped A Rape!!!
" If music is an art, let your car be the canvas, "

BBS Signature
andy70707
andy70707
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Game Developer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 06:59 AM Reply

Guys, clock speed is not proportional to performance! If this was true, you could get a Pentium 4 factory clocked at around 4 GHz, and it would be faster than a 3.3GHz i7, right? Wrong. There are many things that dictate the actually processing speed, and clock speed isn't one of them. It's not even really proportional. The only instance where clock speed increase will definitely make a CPU faster is with two identical CPUs, that's why overclocking works. Multi cores also greatly improve processing ability, but still. most AMD processors have more cores and a faster clock rate than the leading intel processors, but they are still horribly inefficient and slow.

The only way to really gauge the true speed is by looking at its actual performance. I wrote a tutorial a while back on how to use linpack to benchmark an intel CPU. This will give you a tue value of how many mathematical operations it can perform a second (FLoating-point Operations Per Second, or FLOPs, or Giga-FLOPs). This gives a good near true value for speed, but they are hard to find for some CPUs, especially older ones or AMDs. As it also only gives a value for mathematical procesing speed, it doesn't really take into account other things a CPU is used for in everyday life. This is a good proprietary benchmarking site that includes most, if not all modern processors, and a proprietary benchmark based on 3D performance, manipulating objects in your desktop environment, running simple operations etc, which is more helpful when choosing a general use processor. It should still however correlate to the GFLOPS speed.

When I chose my CPU, I went for the slower 2.8GHz i5-760 rather than the 3.33GHz i5-661, as the 760 was newer and therefore benchmarked faster. If you want to compare benchmarks to mine, It gets 4580 CPUmarks (based on the baseline from the website as I don't have the software), and 40-42 GFLOPS from a self run linpack test, after optimization and overclocking to 3.33GHz. Baseline was around 35.

Another somewhat related fact, you can also benchmark GPUs in very similar ways. Wikipedia has the benchmarks for most of them. Graphics cards are effectively very basic computers dedicated for graphics rendering. They have a processor (GPU, or graphics processing unit), RAM, and a board (sometimes called a daughter-board, from motherboard). As the GPUs are specifically designed to render graphics, their GFLOP benchmarks can reach TFLOPS (terraflops. That's trillions of operations per second). When looking at these, most AMD/ATi GPUs are significantly higher than nVidias, but I still prefer nVidia though as AMD/ATi GPUs seem to be very unstable and from experience, most are faulty on arrival. Another thing, nVidia allows CUDA which allows you to actually put all that processing power to a useful purpose. I often run things on my GPU when not using my computer as it is significantly more efficient. That, and there is a lot more support for nVidia GPUs out there. Most games and things are optimised and developed for nVidia GPUs, and the build quality is higher. So ATi/AMD GPUs will be faster, assuming they work. nVidia GPUs are more versatile which is why I prefer them.

TL:DR: Don't be lazy and just read it. I spend the last half-hour writing this.


My websites: MayesMods | FireStorm | I'm also on almost every other website in existence, mostly under the username: andy70707 (youtube: brainiac777, eBay: 10andy70707).

BBS Signature
MatthewF
MatthewF
  • Member since: Jun. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 35
Musician
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 07:25 AM Reply

I guess no one here ever heard of the Von Nuemann flask. The fact that the speed of a system is dependent on the bus', Ram's, and the cpu's speed. Generally the bus is the slowest of all so hence the term Flask.


Excuse me, I'm looking for a car that's been tricked out to look like an ice cream truck.
I could use a strapping young man to do some chores around the house!
AHHH! JACKPOT!

BBS Signature
andy70707
andy70707
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Game Developer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 07:46 AM Reply

At 10/26/11 07:25 AM, MatthewF wrote: I guess no one here ever heard of the Von Nuemann flask. The fact that the speed of a system is dependent on the bus', Ram's, and the cpu's speed. Generally the bus is the slowest of all so hence the term Flask.

Yea, this is another thing, most bus speeds are only around 100MHz. However, an efficient CPU is also important, and when correctly buffered, it can still be very effective. Another thing, RAM speeds are very misleading. The speed commonly printed at "MHz" (usually around 1333 for DDR3), is actually MTs (mega-transfers/second, which is roughly the same as mega-bits/second). Actually clock speeds in MHz are only around 200-266MHz.


My websites: MayesMods | FireStorm | I'm also on almost every other website in existence, mostly under the username: andy70707 (youtube: brainiac777, eBay: 10andy70707).

BBS Signature
MatthewF
MatthewF
  • Member since: Jun. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 35
Musician
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 08:04 AM Reply

Bus speeds have been that slow for a long time now. At least back to the 90s.


Excuse me, I'm looking for a car that's been tricked out to look like an ice cream truck.
I could use a strapping young man to do some chores around the house!
AHHH! JACKPOT!

BBS Signature
HotCakes
HotCakes
  • Member since: Aug. 8, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 09:03 AM Reply

supposedly on air...

9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!?


BBS Signature
066pop
066pop
  • Member since: Oct. 23, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 09:45 AM Reply

For clock speed to make a real difference, you need indentical CPUs AND identical PCs. I had a laptop with much better specs than another one (faster clock, more ram, better drive) but it was actually way slower than a newer one with slightly lower specs. Every component matters so you don't get bottlenecks.

I went for an AMD CPU thinking it was cheaper for better clocks, what I'm really missing out on is the hyper threading though.

Not that it bother's me that much anyway. I am perfectly happy with an over clocked dual core right now. :)
NinoGrounds
NinoGrounds
  • Member since: Nov. 28, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Programmer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 10:01 AM Reply

At 10/25/11 08:13 PM, Painbringer wrote: That's what the newly released 3.5GHz Intel Core i7 2700K processor is, compared to the older, and physically identical, 3.4GHz Core i7 2600K processor of nine months back.

And since both models have an unlocked multiplier, you could just raise the speed of the 2600K to that of a 2700K.

lol
2700k = 2700 thousand

That's a very quick motherfucker

andy70707
andy70707
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Game Developer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 11:41 AM Reply

At 10/26/11 09:33 AM, Tramps wrote:
At 10/26/11 06:59 AM, andy70707 wrote: TL:DR: Don't be lazy and just read it. I spend the last half-hour writing this.
Very informative, thank you! Just so you know that someone actually read your hard work.

I'm relatively new to the hardware side of things with computers. 2 years ago I didn't even know what overclocking was. Nowadays, I get a raging brainer when I see the advancements that are coming our way in years to come. Can't say I was around when clock speed was doubling with each new release. I've been raised on Pentiums and now have an i3 in my computer.

I think the closest advancement we have now is the Bulldozer series from AMD. I'm not a fan of AMD though and can tell immediately that the Bulldozer series may have a better clock speed but lacks the performance and versatility of Intel CPU's.

Thanks for reading it. Our first PC had a Pentium 3, and laptop had another Intel, I think a 386 or something. I have noticed the very latest AMD processors do seem to be up to par with some Intel CPUs now, but I would still not buy one from past experience of how terrible they are. I've mainly stuck to intel, especially after bad experiences with almost every single AMD processor I have owned.

As I said, the first processor I've ever used was a P3 and 386, then P4, then a centrino, then an AMD athlon XP, it wasn't actually terrible but very slow compared to the centrino, and that was in a laptop. I then bought my first laptop (and computer), with an AMD Turion 64x2 which was terrible and I had several dead transistors. I then used a core 2 duo T5500 laptop for a few weeks, then an AMD Athlon II 640, which is very slow and requires excessive cooling. I then bought my second laptop with a Celeron T3500. It's actually slower than the T5500, but it was cheaper and I don't need a powerful laptop anymore as I was planning to build a desktop. I then built my desktop I am using now with an i5-760 (unfortunately about 2 weeks before the 2nd gen i series was released). It is the single fastest computer running in the house now, and roughly twice as fast as the AMD, even though they have the same cores and clock speed. I also bought an AMD Radeon HD 6850 GPU, only to find it dead on arrival. I was then completely put off of AMD and I will now refuse to sue any of their components.

At 10/26/11 09:45 AM, 066pop wrote: For clock speed to make a real difference, you need indentical CPUs AND identical PCs. I had a laptop with much better specs than another one (faster clock, more ram, better drive) but it was actually way slower than a newer one with slightly lower specs. Every component matters so you don't get bottlenecks.

Yup, that's pretty much what I said.

I went for an AMD CPU thinking it was cheaper for better clocks, what I'm really missing out on is the hyper threading though.

I did that when building the above mentioned desktop with an Athlon II 64x4 640, it's benchmark is just over half that of my i5-760 at the same clock speed.

Not that it bother's me that much anyway. I am perfectly happy with an over clocked dual core right now. :)
At 10/26/11 10:01 AM, NinoGrounds wrote:
At 10/25/11 08:13 PM, Painbringer wrote: That's what the newly released 3.5GHz Intel Core i7 2700K processor is, compared to the older, and physically identical, 3.4GHz Core i7 2600K processor of nine months back.

And since both models have an unlocked multiplier, you could just raise the speed of the 2600K to that of a 2700K.
lol
2700k = 2700 thousand

That's a very quick motherfucker

No, the 2700k is just a model name. They had a 2400S, T, and M. They just state the purpose of the CPU. S and T are low-power server variants, K is the unlocked version, and M is mobile for laptops. The model number doesn't have anything to do with speed, but a newer processor in the same series will almost always be faster.


My websites: MayesMods | FireStorm | I'm also on almost every other website in existence, mostly under the username: andy70707 (youtube: brainiac777, eBay: 10andy70707).

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 11:45 AM Reply

At 10/25/11 11:22 PM, Painbringer wrote:
But It is the lack of competition that keeps Intel from moving forward.

Very true. If Intel had stiffer competition, they would likely improve the speed of their newest processor much more significantly. It's an observable fact that intense competition between sellers in a market(In this case, Intel and its competitors in the computers market) leads to better products, lower prices, and more satisfied customers.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
CharltonChinchilla
CharltonChinchilla
  • Member since: Mar. 16, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 11:48 AM Reply

I see lots of numbers and stuff I don't understand and I'm posting anyway.


BBS Signature
ghostface619
ghostface619
  • Member since: Mar. 12, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to 9 months for a 100MHz speed bump?!? Oct. 26th, 2011 @ 12:28 PM Reply

fuck those processors, im sticking to my 2.01ghz single core athlon

i hate being poor

Newgrounds: the former 4chan