Making A Case For Unlocked Dual Core CPU - Research On Losing The Entry Level OCers

[massman]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to share this little bit of research I did on the loss of entry level overclockers. Hope you like it!

In light of the recent news leak by VR-Zone from which we learned the Haswell Refresh is seeing the daylight on June 2nd at Computex 2014, we reviewed the initial information from Intel regarding their upcoming enthusiast releases. In this article I would like to go deeper in on Intel?s approach to the enthusiast market and make an additional case for the USD $100 Pentium K edition.

"... Combining the clear interest of the community to have an overclockable and affordable processor with the historical evidence of the Entry level overclocker group the likes of Pentium E2160, I believe there is demand and room for this type of product. The Entry level overclockers of today are the big spenders of tomorrow and therefore it is important to cater to their wish for the overclocking experience within their budget range. The almost completely wiped out group of Entry level overclockers usually feature the most enthusiastic people, as they are ?in it? for the passion rather than financial gain or grand media exposure. We should treasure that group and make them feel welcome in the world of overclocking again ..."

[FlanK3r]

Finally...Its clear and logic. 75% of forum users have not much money for highend PC. All my forum friends (not from extreme comunnity) have CPU as core i3 or Athlons K edition, because performance is good for them (and they can tweaking K Athlons, others remmeber at Pentium dual core E times).

[Kai Robinson]

Taking a budget CPU and clocking the nuts off it was half the fun. I remember taking my old Core 2 Duo E4300 and running it stably at 4Ghz 24/7. Thats a 2.2Ghz overclock :p

[urbanfox]

Taking a budget CPU and clocking the nuts off it was half the fun. I remember taking my old Core 2 Duo E4300 and running it stably at 4Ghz 24/7. Thats a 2.2Ghz overclock :p

That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.

[AliG]

That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.

I have a 4.5 ghz 2500k myself

One of the greatest purchases I've ever made; the best part is that it's held its own against most modern cpus - having the me the cost of an upgrade requiring a complete overhaul of my motherboard etc. I've been a big proponent of a dedicated overclocking cpu. I want to see Intel bin the out of a 4770k, and shut off everything but the top 2 cores, so you get a cpu that's capable of hitting 6 ghz given the right tweaks.

[PatRaceTin]

People loss their fun on dual core overclocking since i5-655K (If not correct me)

[AliG]

People loss their fun on dual core overclocking since i5-655K (If not correct me)

Perhaps that's true for explicit dualcores, but it's not uncommon to see skilled overclockers disable cores to the maximize their stable frequency (ie turn a quadcore into a dualcore).

[munim]

I read most of it, but not all of it.

Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance and multitasking? Perhaps the real need is for cheaper quad cores and not dual cores.

[BababooeyHTJ]

That's probably the exact reason they don't do it anymore, seriously. I remember when Sandy Bridge was released and anyone and their grandmother was getting 4.5 GHz OC's with decent cooling on 2500K's. If they had an unlocked i3, man, we would be seeing 5 GHz OC's on cheap cooling. I think it's an (unfortunate) strategic play on their part, especially when it comes to gamers. Going Intel, the choice is a dual i3 3.0-3.5 GHz with no OC or an unlocked quad core i5... That's a HUGE product gap, but it makes a lot of people spend the extra money.

Intel is gouging on desktop cpus. AMD hasn't released anything in so long that Intel is clearly taking advantage.

Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.

I really, really hope that AMD releases a solid desktop cpu at some point in the near future. I really want to be done with intel.

[massman]

I read most of it, but not all of it.

Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance and multitasking? Perhaps the real need is for cheaper quad cores and not dual cores.

No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Back when the E6300 was around a very sizable portion of people in the Steam hardware survey were using single core cpus.

I think that the reason that dual core adoption has stayed the same for so long is due to quad core cpu pricing staying the same for such a long time. Thats the one that bugs me.

[AliG]

Intel is gouging on desktop cpus. AMD hasn't released anything in so long that Intel is clearly taking advantage.

Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.

I really, really hope that AMD releases a solid desktop cpu at some point in the near future. I really want to be done with intel.

I completely agree. That's the main reason why I haven't upgraded my 2500k. There just isn't enough performance incentive at a good price anymore to upgrade imo.

[ilkkahy]

Hell, I paid the same amount for my first quad core cpu over years ago that Intel is selling them for to this day. You can not tell me after all of these process shrinks that they can't produce an affordable (sub-$300) hex core cpu. Nope, those are $500+ cpus for the more expensive platform that I don't need.

You have to remember that manufacturing costs is just one thing. They also have to cover huge R&D costs and to make profit.

I would rather get quad core with slower clockspeed than high clocked dual core. I think intel doesnt want to offer too fast overclockable cpu:s so they simply restrict them to dual cores.

[zanzabar]

No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

that goes by logical not physical cores, so the i3 and amd a6-8 count there as well. that other is the amd fx and i7 that have 6 or 8 logical cores. so half are running on an older chip, a pentium, or a4.

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

Just go with AMD if your on that end of the cost spectrum. AMD has a lot to offer the low budget buyer, with tweak friendly support. I bought a opty 165 and nforce 4 board a couple years ago just to tinker with. It was so much fun. For day to day stuff, it still holds its own. I even bought a xp-2500m for the hell of it. Those were the days.

[Lanek]

No, this was more focused on the effects of ditching the low-end tunable CPUs on the overclocking community.

You make an interesting point, though. Of course it would always be better to get a cheap quad core offering. The cheapest quad core for Haswell still is EUR ?150 which is around the price of Core 2 Duo E6300, but you can't mess around with that one.

FYI, according to Steam Hardware Survey 50% of the gamers still run a dual core and this hasn't changed much in the past 1.5 years. So you could say a EUR ?150 price point is still to high for most people; even to switch from dual to quad core.

Im not sure the survey of steam are much accurate, + you have many peoples who surely are using Steam with laptop with dual + HT ( 2C/4T).... Steam is too a plateform now for independant games who are surely more suited for low config in most case ( laptop ) I dont know, i see rarely gamers without quadcore on desktop, whatever it is an old quadcore (I7 920-950 ) or SB, because they dont have the feeling to need to upgrade. If i only take the Intel case, between an 2600K > a 3700K > a 4700K...if you own a 2500- 2600K ( why not with an low oc at 4.2, or even stock ), do you really need to look at the last one ?

The performance jump across 3 generations and specially in game is extremely low... let alone for thoses who overclock their processors

[crash5s]

Back when the E6300 was around a very sizable portion of people in the Steam hardware survey were using single core cpus.

I think that the reason that dual core adoption has stayed the same for so long is due to quad core cpu pricing staying the same for such a long time. Thats the one that bugs me.

The vast majority of computer consumers upgrade habits do not resemble this forum at all though.

For most people computing power has been more than enough for some time now. A dualcore will run the OS, Office, web browsing, facebook, basic photo editing, skype, and everything most people do. After that threshold is crossed form factor, power consumption, and asthetics matter far more than sheer power. In fact, if that quadcore moves you into a thicker form factor, lowers battery life, or uses more power it's a downgrade from a dual, even if the quad was cheaper. So people get the computing device that works for them, and then play the games they can run off it. They aren't going to upgrade to play a fancy AAA game, that's what consoles are for. They play the PC games they can run... and they will not sacrifice form factor or upgrade just to run BF4 or COD on a PC, they will run it off console. Furthermore most consumers do not upgrade just because of new hardware or games. They upgrade when the current box they have straight up dies, or when a new operating system comes out turning the old machine into a hand-me-down for the kid.

Most people are running laptops or hand-me-down desktops and upgrading only when the new version of Windows comes out or when something like an Ultrabook lets them squeeze into an even smaller and lower power form factor. It's to be expected that what they run in terms of core count, RAM volume, ect is vastly below here. The gap between enthusiasts and most consumers is only going to grow larger.

[urbanfox]

Did you address the fact that having a more than two cores has a tangible impact on gaming performance...

It depends entirely on settings, resolution, and the GPU used. The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters. A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.

[zalbard]

The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters.

True, although many games are CPU limited even with high resolution and settings. Depends on the hardware config.

A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.

It's not nearly as simple as that. The shortest answer: depends on the game.

[crash5s]

It depends entirely on settings, resolution, and the GPU used. The higher the resolution/settings, the more GPU driven the game becomes and the less the CPU matters. A 4-5 GHz DC even without HT would be more than enough for even a SLI/Crossfire setup.

People using dual cores usually aren't going to have crossfire or SLI. People are either on dual cores for power/form factor/battery reasons or because they don't upgrade all the time/financial reasons. Crossfire and SLI obliterate all of those instantly.

[urbanfox]

People using dual cores usually aren't going to have crossfire or SLI. People are either on dual cores for power/form factor/battery reasons or because they don't upgrade all the time/financial reasons. Crossfire and SLI obliterate all of those instantly.

I understand that, we are talking about reasons Intel wouldn't implement unlocked dual-cores. If an unlocked dual core could be had for a lot less than an unlocked quad core, then a lot more budget or mid-range gaming machines would have two GPU's possibly.

[urbanfox]

It's not nearly as simple as that. The shortest answer: depends on the game.

While that's true, I was making a general comment based on the purpose of this thread which would apply to the vast majority of games.

[urbanfox]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8046/p...i5-4690k-g3258

Good news...

[b00ts77]

Still rocking a unlocked dual core and a measly gtx460. From my point of view this forum has died in relation to AMD's offerings. My next upgrade is a second-hand r9 290 after all the bitcoiners get out of the mining craze. Unfortunately I will most likely go Intel regarding that upgrade.

PS. I still like looking at my Framed Abit NF7-s on the wall.

[Kai Robinson]

That may be because AMD has no high-end offerings anymore? The FX line is dead in the water - everything 'new' (excavator/carrizo) is speculation, and AMD are focusing on the low to mid-end of the market now. I would love AMD to announce something new for the high end, but they won't do that this year, and possibly not until the end of next year, either.