Have CPU's got to a point where they don't have to be upgraded?

[SkyyPunk Veteran]

I am also still on a few year old PC (with upgrades). I am also on the i7 920 (pretty popular :p) and went from 6gb originally to 12gb. I also upgraded my GTX 285 to two GTX 460s in SLI last year. The 285 was still decent, but I needed more for BF3 and it was cheaper to sell that and get two 460s on sale than it was to get a 2nd 285 (I think it ended up only netting $80 difference). I also moved to an SSD...well, two, until one died... but after I got the RMAd drive I figure I will wait for my new rig.

I am planning on building a new rig this year. Going to sell off most of my current stuff (not sure if I will part or sell as a whole). I am going to be going with Ivy Bridge, GTX 770 or 780 (assuming rumors of skipping 600 naming are true), 24gb RAM (or 32, keeping my eye on prices), and mostly SSDs plus one large storage drive. Since I have to wait for Ivy Bridge and the new nvidia cards I have been slowly building up the other parts.I have several SSDs, a new PSU, looking towards a 3TB 7200rpm drive once it goes on sale again, and RAM once it drops. Also keeping an eye on a new case (currently on a V1 Antec Twelve Hundred...I have several annoyances with it like no hole to get to the CPU cooler back plate...).

I also plan on getting a new monitor... I am currently using 2 20" Dell Ultrasharps (only 1680x1050) and an older 18" Philips (1280x1024). I will probably grab a 24 or 23" Ultrasharp once they go on sale again - I need some 1080p lovin.

[Xerino]

also seems like they stoppped (stock speeds) at 3.93ghz, and just said MORE CORES!!! what would it be like if they had decided to release a 10ghz CPU?

[rfirth]

If you were working on the hdd as ram, then that would be a true bottleneck, that's why ram is used instead and on a system an hdd can be referred more like a storage medium rather than a bottleneck, because it's not a "essential" part to put the processor to work at full speed. Slow loading times arise from this yeah, but once you're on the windows desktop (or playing a game) the hdd is far from being the bottleneck.

Next you're going to be telling us that RAM speed isn't a bottleneck because CPUs operate on registers, right? Because RAM isn't necessary for full speed operation - just an instruction cache and registers.

You load data from hdd much more often than you probably realize. And the performance penalty is huge. Even the performance penalty of accessing RAM instead of registers can be huge.

[Arceles]

Next you're going to be telling us that RAM speed isn't a bottleneck because CPUs operate on registers, right? Because RAM isn't necessary for full speed operation - just an instruction cache and registers.

You load data from hdd much more often than you probably realize. And the performance penalty is huge. Even the performance penalty of accessing RAM instead of registers can be huge.

I don't see that happening on my games (dirt 3/skyrim) nor my simulation programs at work (matlab/labview), not even my gamecube/wii/ps2 emulators... so no. HDD is not often accessed as you seem to think.

[Rudy]

I don't see that happening on my games (dirt 3/skyrim) nor my simulation programs at work (matlab/labview), not even my gamecube/wii/ps2 emulators... so no. HDD is not often accessed as you seem to think.

For gaming HDD is not as important, but ANYTHING else it's a huge bottleneck

[tsupersonic]

Yep, HDD's are definitely a bottleneck these days. SSD's are so much better. The access times of SSD's are amazing, not to mention, it's just a win for speed, power usage, temperature, etc. The price is really the only negative aspect of it.

[Arceles]

For gaming HDD is not as important, but ANYTHING else it's a huge bottleneck

Anything else may be only compiling code, however I really doubt that a SSD will last that long. The only real benefit of an SSD is extremely reduced load times, however with a properly tuned computer loading times are not that much of a problem. Once in the program ram enters in action, and unless the program is paging for some reason, there is no penalization on its usual operation.

[JustGeorge]

I remember back in 1998 when I got my first computer. It was a PII 333 with 64 or 128 of ram can't remember which. I ran windows good but by 2001 (3 years later) it felt long in the tooth. So I upgraded to a PIII 1ghz (dual CPU motherboard with only 1 CPU) with 512 megs of ram. It was a power house at the time running Windows 2000 and then Windows XP.

Then in 2005 (4 years later) the computer was feeling long in the tooth and I upgraded to the Athlon 64, still running XP. Point being I was upgrading about every 3 - 4 years. With every windows release, the hardware and the ram felt liked it needed upgrading.

My Newest system, built in October 2008 is an i7 920 with 6 gigs (Upgrade to 12GB) of ram. This machine is powering 4 monitors and is running off an 80GB SSD Drive. It even plays Skyrim good. This computer is still (4 years later) meeting every need I have and not feeling slow in the least (SSD helps in that ). I honestly don't see myself upgrading for at least another 3 years.

So do you think CPU's have got to the point where they just don't have to be upgraded as often as they use to?

LOL , I'm still running an old Athlon X2 5600+ @ 2.91Ghz w/4GB RAM. My laptop is an old Dell E1505 Core Duo, 2GB RAM. Both do eveything I need them to do. I did upgrade the laptop with a 64GB SSD (Crucial M4) which made it seem like a new laptop. Even improved the battery life. I would like to build another PC soon, just to maintain the skill, but money is tight and I have no real motivating need for one atm.

[PGHammer]

This is why there is such need for innovation. do you remember when we first went from single core to dual core? that was innovative. When we went to 4 cores, it was improving a good idea. with i7s they didn't add more cores but added more cash and all these other features you can read about on wiki. But there hasn't been any new "innovative" ideas. unless we have something like that, you won't see a giant leap in day to day performance.

If you look at the I/O side of things. we were stangnant for a long time with USB 2 and revisions of it. eSATA was sort of innovative and then USB 3 came about which was a huge improvement. Thunderbolt is innovative and rocks the rest right now....

And the improvements weren't confined to the high end, either - look at i5-2500K. Except for Hyperthreading (a niche feature) it performs at least as well as its i7 unlocked brother - for $100USD (at least) less. (Cha-CHING!)

Even worst-casing a minimal barebone (CPU, solid Z68 motherboard, 8GB of DDR3-1333), you can order a minimal barebone from Best Buy for barely over $500 - including tax in all but the highest-tax states - and have the parts in-hand in a week. (The only assumption is that you already have a solid mid-tower or better ATX case (the motherboard is full-ATX), a solid PSU, and a decent GPU (though, thanks to Z68, the same barebone will still work - you simply use the on-CPU integrated GPU while waiting to add a discrete GPU if you lack one). The reason I picked BB as the worst case is due to their lack of discounts.)

CPU/motherboard bundle - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Intel%26%23174%3B+-+Unlocked+Core%26%23153%3B+i5-2500K+Processor+and+Asus+ATX+Motherboard/4070266.p?id=1218454388517&skuId=4070266

RAM - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Patriot+Memory+-+G2+Series+8GB+1333MHz+PC3-10666+DDR3+Desktop+Memory/4070284.p?id=1218454385731&skuId=4070284

[selphj]

Software design hasn't quite caught up to the hardware yet. Sure, multitasking and all that uses the cores. But rarely does anything push them. The day will come though, another huge jump will happen. For years with DOS programs, rarely did most people need more power. Just like the jump from DOS style programs to WYSIWYG drastically increased the need for more power the day is coming. Maybe it's integration of Kinect, the computer will become "aware" of who is sitting there. It will truly interact in a way we can't yet dream of. Whatever the next jump is, the need for more power will happen. The mobile market is significant yes, but I really believe the PC market is just getting started.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Anything else may be only compiling code, however I really doubt that a SSD will last that long. The only real benefit of an SSD is extremely reduced load times, however with a properly tuned computer loading times are not that much of a problem. Once in the program ram enters in action, and unless the program is paging for some reason, there is no penalization on its usual operation.

You seem to lack quite a bit of knowledge in regards to how a PC operates and how people use them. And you've clearly never used a SSD. For one, a SSD will theoretically last longer than a mechanical HDD. I've had a few HDD failures over the years, but have yet to have a single SSD die since the first Vertex generation. Obviously that story is different for everybody, but common sense would say: moving parts < no moving parts.

I can't think of a single situation where an HDD would even compare to the shear speed of a SSD. Even in a RAID config, the SSD will still run circles around it. I still fail to see what you're getting at...

[Arceles]

You seem to lack quite a bit of knowledge in regards to how a PC operates and how people use them. And you've clearly never used a SSD. For one, a SSD will theoretically last longer than a mechanical HDD. I've had a few HDD failures over the years, but have yet to have a single SSD die since the first Vertex generation. Obviously that story is different for everybody, but common sense would say: moving parts < no moving parts. I can't think of a single situation where an HDD would even compare to the shear speed of a SSD. Even in a RAID config, the SSD will still run circles around it. I still fail to see what you're getting at...

I'm not saying that SSDs are worse than HDDs, I'm saying that the storage mediums are not a cause of bottlenecking in modern programs. BTW I'm very well educated in this matters but some people seem to defend SSDs to death as if it were the final solution for speed increase in a PC, when in reality they are just reducing load times.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I will say my two cents...

It is hard to know how well the improvements would be without having experienced the change first hand. For instance, I had a Q6600 Core 2 Quad up until 2011 with 16GB of RAM and a high end mobo. My impression of my Q6600 was that it was a decent setup and needed no major overhaul, except to feed my need for lots of RAM. I wasn't planning any changes until Intel released the X79, but had to push that upgrade sooner due to a PC failure here (not the aforementioned Q6600). I picked up the i7 960, X58, and 24GB of RAM. I can assure you I feel the difference and it is major.

Of course, it all depends on your usage, but I think we won't see the improvements without having used the newer stuff. The question becomes has you current system "aged" performance wise enough to compel you to look ahead. Enhancements to make Windows more efficient for mobile devices has helped us feel comfortable as our teeth grow longer.

I'm not saying that SSDs are worse than HDDs, I'm saying that the storage mediums are not a cause of bottlenecking in modern programs. BTW I'm very well educated in this matters but some people seem to defend SSDs to death as if it were the final solution for speed increase in a PC, when in reality they are just reducing load times.

I have attempted to make the same arguments, as they are supported by solid evidence, but you'll get the same "SSD is the holy grail" responses. There will be no end and no understanding of the information you're trying to share.

[inactive]

i voted YES. (although i imagine anything that requires a lot of processing power like games would still require something fairly recent. but even games... those seem to be held back based on consoles as once there is a new generation of consoles i suspect we will see another surge in needing fancier CPU/GPU's but as long as games are still made for the PS3/Xbox360 i think any CPU's that are probably solid within the last 4-5 years could still hold their own)

because i think even my current system, lacking my 2GB of RAM (if i had 4GB i am sure my overall system would be closer to modern ones in general use), would still hold it's own for general use against these modern higher end CPU's and my core PC was made in March 2006 so it's nearly 6 years old. although i have since upgraded CPU from single to dual core (same Ghz though) and graphics card but other than that it's basically the same PC.

so while my PC might be a bit off from the modern CPU's i imagine, like mentioned, that anything roughly 4 years ago, give or take, is still solid today for general use.

so while i am sure i would notice a upgrade from my CPU to a fairly modern one i can't see it being anywhere near night and day difference though for most general uses like web browsing and some general navigation of the PC.

point being... modern CPU's stand the test of time better than older CPU's used to back in the early 2000's or older where every few years would be a pretty big leap where as now, even though i am sure there is some, it's not as large of a gap especially for general use especially if you RAM is at a sufficient level.

because lacking my need for a RAM upgrade (2Gb to 4GB, which i probably won't do due to the costs of DDR400 (PC3200) RAM costs) my system is suspect would still hold respectable performance for general use into the foreseeable future.

p.s. hell, my nearly 11 year old AMD Athlon 1.2ghz (which i got in April 2001) i suspect is still OK, especially considering it's age. but that PC i think is mostly handicapped due to lack of RAM as with 512MB of RAM it's going to be a issue especially with all of these modern browsers sucking up more and more RAM. but considering that PC is 11 year old it's still not dead slow or anything and holds it's own even though obviously any PC's over the last 6-ish years would be a pretty big boost in overall performance.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

You seem to lack quite a bit of knowledge in regards to how a PC operates and how people use them. And you've clearly never used a SSD. For one, a SSD will theoretically last longer than a mechanical HDD. I've had a few HDD failures over the years, but have yet to have a single SSD die since the first Vertex generation. Obviously that story is different for everybody, but common sense would say: moving parts < no moving parts.

I can't think of a single situation where an HDD would even compare to the shear speed of a SSD. Even in a RAID config, the SSD will still run circles around it. I still fail to see what you're getting at...

I won't jump too deep into this rabbit hole. But you have to clarify what you mean by speed. There are many HDD setup, especially RAID, that will exceed SSD in raw sequential transfer speed (and won't use compression tricks either). SSDs will always win out versus a HDD in latency speed (as the HDD has to move a physical head, but the SSD doesn't).

The "speed" of SSDs don't come from their transfer speeds, but their low latency.

[Astra.Xtreme]

I'm not saying that SSDs are worse than HDDs, I'm saying that the storage mediums are not a cause of bottlenecking in modern programs. BTW I'm very well educated in this matters but some people seem to defend SSDs to death as if it were the final solution for speed increase in a PC, when in reality they are just reducing load times.

If the dreadfully slow read/write times of a HDD aren't the cause of a bottleneck, then what is? It's a pretty simple concept and there's no need to go into computer theory to get to that conclusion. Mechanical HDDs are slow, and that's all there is to say. If you can prove some way that HDDs are legitimately superior, I'd be all ears, but I really don't see it. Obviously SSDs are far more expensive and haven't gotten up to the capacity levels of HDDs, but it will get there with time.

[Arceles]

If the dreadfully slow read/write times of a HDD aren't the cause of a bottleneck, then what is? It's a pretty simple concept and there's no need to go into computer theory to get to that conclusion. Mechanical HDDs are slow, and that's all there is to say. If you can prove some way that HDDs are legitimately superior, I'd be all ears, but I really don't see it. Obviously SSDs are far more expensive and haven't gotten up to the capacity levels of HDDs, but it will get there with time.

I wont because it's already said in the last paragraphs.

[-KJ]

I use Photoshop (print/web graphics), watch movies, browsers open, IDE open, etc. I don't game on it, do any 3D modeling or rendering nor motion video graphics.

I am running a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo from 2008. I recently upgraded to an i7. For what I do, the i7 upgrade yielded very little.

You know what actually made a difference? Getting an SSD.

So if you don't game or use programs that eat a contant high amount of CPU, then yes, they really don't have to be upgraded until the software wants us to.

[Boz]

As many have seen even here on Neowin. I"ve upgraded to the top of the line almost every year and a half to two. I always post my builds on Neowin and the whole process.

But I have had this i7 for more then 2 years and Mac for like 4 years and it is definitely still rocking to the point that i really don't have the reason to upgrade.

I waited for X79 platform to get 6 core i7s but the reality is that software is not catching up anymore. One reason is the mediocre power of devices we use in our lives as much as we do our computers and those who make software develop for the lowest common denominator and since the web/cloud/mobile devices are far less powerful than your PC, the need to upgrade is not as prevalent as it was 5 years ago. You don't really gain that much.

Another reason that drove performance on computers are games. And since those are far and few between that really move the boundaries of hardware (read consolified) that aspect also affected the upgrade cycles.

I don't think it's bad, but I think we have started to stagnate in computer innovation and are shifting towards similar growth as we had on PCs but for mobile devices, TVs, tablets etc.

[Muhammad Farrukh]

No.

At least not yet

[SirEvan]

but added more cash

Where did they add thish cash...to their bank account?

[SkyyPunk Veteran]

My work laptop came with a standard HDD. Most of the time when the HDD activity jumped up, everything came to a crawl and would often freeze. We later upgraded it to an SSD and WOW...it felt like a completely different machine. I had to temporarily use one of our others (exact same model/specs, but still on original HDD) and I couldn't stand it...opening up/compiling solutions, general opening/closing other files...you could easily feel the difference in responsiveness

[remixedcat]

the thing that is hestitation to me in getting an ssd is i have noticed many people having issues with SSDs and failing within a year or less. some within 3 months. many people have random BSODs and crashes in windows 7.

[Open Minded]

the thing that is hestitation to me in getting an ssd is i have noticed many people having issues with SSDs and failing within a year or less. some within 3 months. many people have random BSODs and crashes in windows 7.

I had issues with my SSD (Pryo) until the latest firmware. Now everything is great.

[2xSilverKnight]

the thing that is hestitation to me in getting an ssd is i have noticed many people having issues with SSDs and failing within a year or less. some within 3 months. many people have random BSODs and crashes in windows 7.

Well I don't know anybody with SSD problems here ... Including my own SSD (Crucial M300 128Gb Sata3) which I have been using for 14 months now.