I have a machine with 1024 cores and 2TB or RAM (no joke). I think the point of the comment above was that you don't *need* 64GB just because you need a TR.
That is why these new CPUs are a slippery slope for people. At the end of the day even the hardcore gamer really has no incentive to upgrade past a CPU like the 2600K from Intel that was so popular. AMD is trying to put the "business" and "consumer" cpu in different category, but every year it seems kind of comical in most regards. Not saying that they don't have a advantage, but like you said the performance is getting to the point that you will not actually care about Mhz or core count, and more of feature sets of the CPU.
Case in point: "3.5 GHz base frequency and a 4.7 GHz single core boost frequency; the overall all-core turbo frequency will be dependent on the motherboard used, the quality of the silicon, and the turbo in play."
The last CPU i had boost was a 486dx intel cpu that went from 33mhz to 66mhz Boosted..even at that time i remember the controversy of it all. What i'm saving is when you get to a point that you have so many cores and are itching for a measly 100mhz or so its time to focus on integrating new tech into the cpu.
Maybe your memory is foggy but the turbo on the 486 was a misnomer. It didn't make the cpu faster. 66mhz was the base clock. It halved the multiplier to run the cpu at 33mhz for games that didn't use the rtc. Many DOS games didn't support polling system time from the rtc because a lot of 386 and earlier systems didn't have them. So they kept time relative to the cpu cycles as a work around. I remember Liero did this and anything faster than a 16mhz 386 made the game actually run faster, to the point of unplayability. Unclocking the 486 via the turbo button helped, although on some games not enough.
True. They all just misnamed the button turbo :) Which even back in the the 286 days I had a turbo button it of course worked as you described albeit lower frequencies.
Platform features like PCIe version, SATA version, NVMe, some things that weren't even a sparkle in the eyes of engineers back in the Sandybridge days. Sure, if you only game, there's not too much of a difference, but there is a good one to say no to Sandybridge era CPUs in modern times. Hell, I wanna upgrade my 4790k, which is 3 years younger than Sandy Bridge.
The hardcore gamer have a lot of reasons to upgrade from Sandy, CPUs are faster, have more features, and newer stuff works better for newer OSs and such.
You have a point for the average person, CPU performance is pretty much a commodity. It took awhile but we have hit a point where people can reasonably afford more compute power than they need. However people who do real work like say video editing and don't have server farms these advances have been huge as they can never have to much compute.
This hasn't been true for around 2-3 years now, depending how you measure. Sandy had a long life (mainly thanks to its extremely conservative clock rates at stock) but it's way outside what I'd recommend to anyone looking to game even moderately seriously now.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
171 Comments
View All Comments
extide - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Dependson your workloads. Both my desktop and work laptop have 64GB and I want to move my desktop at home to 128GB soon.close - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
I have a machine with 1024 cores and 2TB or RAM (no joke). I think the point of the comment above was that you don't *need* 64GB just because you need a TR.voodoobunny - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
... what do you *do*, and how can we do that too?imaheadcase - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
That is why these new CPUs are a slippery slope for people. At the end of the day even the hardcore gamer really has no incentive to upgrade past a CPU like the 2600K from Intel that was so popular. AMD is trying to put the "business" and "consumer" cpu in different category, but every year it seems kind of comical in most regards. Not saying that they don't have a advantage, but like you said the performance is getting to the point that you will not actually care about Mhz or core count, and more of feature sets of the CPU.Case in point:
"3.5 GHz base frequency and a 4.7 GHz single core boost frequency; the overall all-core turbo frequency will be dependent on the motherboard used, the quality of the silicon, and the turbo in play."
The last CPU i had boost was a 486dx intel cpu that went from 33mhz to 66mhz Boosted..even at that time i remember the controversy of it all. What i'm saving is when you get to a point that you have so many cores and are itching for a measly 100mhz or so its time to focus on integrating new tech into the cpu.
zmatt - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Maybe your memory is foggy but the turbo on the 486 was a misnomer. It didn't make the cpu faster. 66mhz was the base clock. It halved the multiplier to run the cpu at 33mhz for games that didn't use the rtc. Many DOS games didn't support polling system time from the rtc because a lot of 386 and earlier systems didn't have them. So they kept time relative to the cpu cycles as a work around. I remember Liero did this and anything faster than a 16mhz 386 made the game actually run faster, to the point of unplayability. Unclocking the 486 via the turbo button helped, although on some games not enough.FreckledTrout - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
True. They all just misnamed the button turbo :) Which even back in the the 286 days I had a turbo button it of course worked as you described albeit lower frequencies.Xyler94 - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
There's more to a PC than raw CPU power.Platform features like PCIe version, SATA version, NVMe, some things that weren't even a sparkle in the eyes of engineers back in the Sandybridge days. Sure, if you only game, there's not too much of a difference, but there is a good one to say no to Sandybridge era CPUs in modern times. Hell, I wanna upgrade my 4790k, which is 3 years younger than Sandy Bridge.
The hardcore gamer have a lot of reasons to upgrade from Sandy, CPUs are faster, have more features, and newer stuff works better for newer OSs and such.
Threska - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Instructions the earlier CPU didn't.**Reason I had to upgrade. The DRM needed it.
FreckledTrout - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
You have a point for the average person, CPU performance is pretty much a commodity. It took awhile but we have hit a point where people can reasonably afford more compute power than they need. However people who do real work like say video editing and don't have server farms these advances have been huge as they can never have to much compute.Spunjji - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
This hasn't been true for around 2-3 years now, depending how you measure. Sandy had a long life (mainly thanks to its extremely conservative clock rates at stock) but it's way outside what I'd recommend to anyone looking to game even moderately seriously now.