"When will we see stock 4.5+ GHz CPUs?"

Probably in a couple months right after I build a new system. :mad:

Haha.

 

That's usually the way.

 

I gave up "waiting" for the next big change a while ago. No matter what you do, your kit will be superseded lightning fast. The pace of technological improvement in terms of computing power is phenomenal.

 

If you only have to wait a month or so, fair enough, otherwise, when you have the dosh, just do it. Wait, and you'll be waiting forever.

I just thought that instead of blowing $2000 every 2 years on a new system (like I've done before), you could wait 4 years, only upgrade once, and save some money. For me, currently, FSX runs quite well. I have never had any OOM. No crashes, or anything. Very stable, and it performs well.

 

If you upgrade every 2 years, the jump in performance may be smaller, but in 4 years, a lot bigger, and its less money to spend. I understand what you're saying about waiting too long. I certainly wouldn't need PCIe 7.0 or until they come up with CPUs that run at 50 GHz (sometime in the far future when they no longer use silicon).

Fair enough.

 

It's down to having the available finances, and deciding if a given performance improvement is worth adopting or not.

I agree that there is less incentive to upgrade these days if you already have a half decent quadcore PC. I have an i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz with 8GB DDR3-1600 RAM and a 1GB GeForce GTX 560Ti powered system (purchased two years ago), and the only item that I would consider upgrading right now would be the graphics card (for any potential move to P3D).

Basically - I do not think that we will see better CPUs in terms of clock speed in the future. 

 

In 2006, when FSX was released one already could buy 3.7GHz CPUs (e.g. Intel Pressler EE 965) - today Intels fastes CPU is still 3.7GHz (e.g. i7-4820K or the Xeon E5-1660 v2). Yes AMD has a 4.5GHz CPU but it has limited overclocking capability. I am talking about stock CPUs - no overclocking or something. Compared to 2006, the CPUs are more efficient and are working on more cores. So they are actually working on several tasks in parallel and the performance increase is not based on actual clock speed. Parallel tasks is not something FSX is actually benefiting from and therefore we still heavily depend on actual clock speeds and we basically got stuck for 7 years with the same clock speed now.

 

As for the world outside FSX - the classic PC market is declining rapidly due to mobile devices and new generation consoles. Development of new and faster CPUs is a huge investment into a market which is actually going down. Gaming as a classic driver for innovation is more and more focused on GPUs and just lock how GPUs have developed over the years. Again - not something FSX is really focusing on. 

 

As for the "normal user" - nobody needs better CPU for using the internet or writing e-mails or working with Excel in the office. I think we reached the end there CPU wise. Its more interesting now to have more efficient CPUs e.g. energy wise to allow for longer battery load cycles with mobile devices than actual higher clock speeds for the majority of the market in my opinion.

 

GG

 Parallel tasks is not something FSX is actually benefiting from and therefore we still heavily depend on actual clock speeds and we basically got stuck for 7 years with the same clock speed now.

 

 

 

True, apart from the fact that CPU architecture improvements absolutely benefit the sim. So even though we may be at the same frequency, we are seeing gains due to greater efficiency.

True, apart from the fact that CPU architecture improvements absolutely benefit the sim. So even though we may be at the same frequency, we are seeing gains due to greater efficiency.

 

Completely agree. FS doesn't heavily depend on clock speeds, it depends on single-core performance. That's a subtle but very important distinction. My Sandy Bridge idling at 1.6Ghz would probably dismantle a 3.7Ghz Pressler core.

 

Cheers!

Luke

Sad to hear that Intel is cutting 5000 jobs because of lack of demand for their processor line. Well if they would come out with new processors with significant boosts in speed, there would be a bigger demand, LOL. I have been putting off upgrading because there really hasn't been any significant upgrades in CPU tech since I built this rig.

Intel is reacting to bigger demand - in terms of power consumption. FWIW a Haswell i7 is approximately 25% faster, in addition to having vastly lower power consumption than your Bloomfield.

 

Cheers!

Luke

Intel is driving an eco car... while we still want a Bugatti Veyron gas guzzler.  :rolleyes:

 

 

Actually, the CPU equivalent of a Veyron, but with an economy mode would do.

I see that Intel hasn't gotten around to replacing SATA controllers with PCIe in their chipsets for the PC platform yet. My new Mac Pro comes with PCIe SSDs.

 

Good thing though that CPUs cost almost nothig these days. No wonder they aren't making any money. Give me a stock 4,5GHz i7 and I'll pay you "extreme edition price" Intel!  

 

 

I see that Intel hasn't gotten around to replacing SATA controllers with PCIe in their chipsets for the PC platform yet. My new Mac Pro comes with PCIe SSDs.

 

You say that as if it's a good thing. Putting storage on the motherboard reduces flexibility, increases cost and makes upgrades impossible - in return for what? Modern SSDs can't saturate SATA3 in any case.

 

And you can certainly get PCIe SSD storage for PCs from places like FusionIO.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Outside of very specialized applications (like FSX), raw clock speed isn't even that important anymore. The CPU companies are all focusing on power efficiency for mobile devices now - Haswell is the reason my new laptop has a 9 or 10 hour battery life for instance. Other games outside of FSX are almost totally dependent on GPU power, not CPU and Nvidia and AMD are still taking care of that end just fine.

Intel isn't designing CPUs for a tiny niche market of flight simmers and I don't believe their goal is going to be hugely increased base clock speeds any time soon.

You say that as if it's a good thing. Putting storage on the motherboard reduces flexibility, increases cost and makes upgrades impossible - in return for what? Modern SSDs can't saturate SATA3 in any case.

 

And you can certainly get PCIe SSD storage for PCs from places like FusionIO.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

To me it is a good thing and a step in the right direction. I never upgrade. I buy a top of the line system and live with it for 4-5 years. Have been doing that since 1991. Flexibility means nothing to me - only good performance.