• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

GHz vs Core count

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

UltraTaco

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
After i7 9700k, do you think there will be some random breakthrough for higher GHz, or are we stuck with soon 14t/28c multicore CPUs?

I want to see dual core 27.5 GHz cpu
 
There are already some exotic materials right now that already work at frequencies way beyond anything silicon can imagine, but they're not exactly cheap and I don't know if anyone has made something as complex as a CPU out of them. Don't expect to see them in mainstream equipment.
 
What is i9 9700k? :p

Also..."14t/28c" ....is wrong. Its the other way around...with HT, there are more threads than cores. ;)

its a limit of the silicon and production methods, essentially. Cant get rid of heat fast enough is a problem
 
Last edited:
Well that's what I meant, 14c 28thread,

Intel didn't think there was a limit when they were doing pentiums, they we're aiming in the near future to achieve 4+ GHz and much higher, all they need is something more obtainable to make mainstream 8ghz happen!
 
I don't use the speed I have now, either. I just figured I'd waste something different next time. Well, I do still play a few games sometimes. So it's not a complete waste of parts, along with being my first/only Intel build. I can't play with the girlfriend's FX 8350. It temporarily has a silly Zalman air cooler on it and a Giga board, so no extra speed for that chip for now. Waiting for my daughter to pick hers up so we can play with it. A Ryzen rig would be new stuff and a cure for boredom!

Besides, just like a gun, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
 
If I win the lottery I'll send you a couple first thing. I can't think of a single thing I would need one for. Except maybe find software that utilizes a dozen threads just so I can say "Yeah, I did that faster than anyone." Which in and of itself isn't a bad reason, mind you. Just an expensive one. :rofl:
 
More or less we stuck at the same max frequency for long years now and it won't change anytime soon. More cores is the way how market is convincing end-users that they need upgrades. I also think we will see not fast change in cores but reduced power in the same amount of cores. So when now we have ~6 cores at 100W then it will drop to ~85W..65...45..30...15... It's also because software is not changing so fast and people simply don't need more cores but they wish higher performance, mobile computers which will last on battery for long hours.
Also as you see ( or maybe not but it was in some Intel docs some months ago ), in Intel plans are more SOC/BGA chips and less high-end socket series. Soon only gamer/enthusiast series will be socketed and other chips will be soldered.

Enthusiast/HEDT series are really low % of sales. Especially you can see how Threadripper is selling. Huge marketing success, total sales fail. Even though it's good then there are barely any motherboards comparing to lower series or even Intel HEDT because people are not buying them. Ryzen 6 core chips are on the other hand huge sales success. Even though are selling worse than Intels, then numbers are really good.

If AMD won't make any significant mistake then they will take % of market from Intel. I expect to see better 2000 series Threadripper sales but can be situation that those who wanted, already invested 1000 series and won't switch till "3000" generation.
 
I did a comparison in rendering a long time ago of 1 vs 2 vs 4 cores. While 2 cores gave 2x rendering speed, going to 4 cores didn't give 4x rendering speed, it was more like 3x as fast..
 
what I render at home is about cores so threadripper builds are in the works.
For the general public I don't think more cores or a lot faster chip is needed, better, more optimized software is what i think is needed.
as fast as gpu rendering is i wonder when we might use those for everything but it looks to me like we are headed toward computing as a service so that's right out.
 
I did a comparison in rendering a long time ago of 1 vs 2 vs 4 cores. While 2 cores gave 2x rendering speed, going to 4 cores didn't give 4x rendering speed, it was more like 3x as fast..

Welcome to scaling. Multithreading isn't perfect, but neither is just jacking up the speed.
 
I did a comparison in rendering a long time ago of 1 vs 2 vs 4 cores. While 2 cores gave 2x rendering speed, going to 4 cores didn't give 4x rendering speed, it was more like 3x as fast..

Generally speaking, things can scale until something prevents it from doing so. I don't know what kinda data is moving where in that rendering, but storage speed and ram bandwidth might be under suspicion.
 
Back