Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#51

Post by londons_explore »

hddherman wrote: post #45
Causality1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My old self-imposed rule was that upgrading was a waste of money unless I could get at least twice the performance. Manufacturers have generated high benchmarks by throwing "moar cores" at it but even the best chips have barely a 40% single-thread increase over my seven year old Haswell build.

40% single thread increase, but most likely 100+% increase in core count. CPU manufacturers did not slap more cores on a CPU to get high benchmark scores, it's just one of the few viable options for increasing CPU performance.

Check top/task manager from time to time. It's pretty rare any desktop applications use more than 2 or 3 cores to the max.

That means those extra cores won't really help day to day performance.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#52

Post by nothis »

tyingq wrote: post #21

Aside from the pressure from AMD, I think there's another force at play here. There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. For them, a 5 year old (or older?) CPU is good enough that they don't know they are missing anything. Especially if they have enough memory and an SSD.

Software tends to fill the space it lives in. I have seen websites that are more taxing on my CPU than video games.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#53

Post by whatever1 »

vnorilo wrote: post #36
elorant wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I built a desktop rig for my dad back in 2013 with an i3-3220. Seven years later it still works just fine for his needs. The only thing I changed over the years was to add a bit more RAM. I don't plan on updating it unless the CPU/mobo dies.

Yeah - it's great. I'm rocking a 2008 Nehalem at home, having since doubled the memory to 12GB, upgraded the GPU and replaced a failed PSU. It runs like a champ and my non-techie friends think I'm kidding when I say it's more than 10 years old.

It’s because an equally priced 2020 intel cpu is at most twice as fast as your Nehalem (now you can get a 6core for the same money you got your 4core). Per core performance improvement is not even close to twice as fast.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#54

Post by stagger87 »

dahfizz wrote: post #42
tyingq wrote: post #21

Aside from the pressure from AMD, I think there's another force at play here. There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. For them, a 5 year old (or older?) CPU is good enough that they don't know they are missing anything. Especially if they have enough memory and an SSD.

> There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. As opposed to the people who used to use their computer for email and spread sheets? I would argue that the resource needs of a web browser has absolutely been increasing over time. The 4GB of RAM in that old laptop just does not work for the modern web. And considering how many web site now require the client to run tons an…

4GB of RAM on a machine (regardless of OS) is absolutely fine for browsing the "modern web".

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#55

Post by lagadu »

Causality1 wrote: post #24
ResidentSleeper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being in the market for an enthusiast CPU is predicated on being enthusiastic about CPUs in the first place, and that's become somewhat difficult in the last couple of years.

Indeed. My old self-imposed rule was that upgrading was a waste of money unless I could get at least twice the performance. Manufacturers have generated high benchmarks by throwing "moar cores" at it but even the best chips have barely a 40% single-thread increase over my seven year old Haswell build.

Have you looked at what you wrote? 40% increase is MASSIVE. Not only that but multi threaded the increase is in the several hundred percent range.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#56

Post by [deleted] »

hddherman wrote: post #45
Causality1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My old self-imposed rule was that upgrading was a waste of money unless I could get at least twice the performance. Manufacturers have generated high benchmarks by throwing "moar cores" at it but even the best chips have barely a 40% single-thread increase over my seven year old Haswell build.

40% single thread increase, but most likely 100+% increase in core count. CPU manufacturers did not slap more cores on a CPU to get high benchmark scores, it's just one of the few viable options for increasing CPU performance.

[deleted]

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#57

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Does anyone know where Intel's codenames come from? They're... supremely weird.

"Ivy Bridge" and "Skylake" evoke images of fantastical locations—chasms transversal only by green bridges woven of ivy, or serene bodies of water that float among the clouds. "Willow Cove" is similarly suggestive, if somewhat more mundane.

But, Tiger Lake? Coffee Lake? SuperFin? Is there a formula here?

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#58

Post by [deleted] »

leetcrew wrote: post #43
Causality1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My old self-imposed rule was that upgrading was a waste of money unless I could get at least twice the performance. Manufacturers have generated high benchmarks by throwing "moar cores" at it but even the best chips have barely a 40% single-thread increase over my seven year old Haswell build.

are all your workloads single/lightly threaded? my 9700k compiles c++ two to three times faster than my old 4770k.

[deleted]

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#59

Post by Wandfarbe »

When i read comments here i'm wondering how and why people are either for or against intel?

IF i need to upgrade, i will check the current situation and will buy the best cpu in comparison to my needs and price.

If it means that i need tons of core because of my workload i might choose a threadripper. Do i need to compile often and i know a specific intel cpu will save me ton of time waiting but it costs more? Fine.

Do i wanna play games? lets see what i can get for ~150$ bucks range.

/shrug

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#60

Post by bitxbit »

tyingq wrote: post #21

Aside from the pressure from AMD, I think there's another force at play here. There are quite a lot of people now that just use a web browser on their desktop or laptop. For them, a 5 year old (or older?) CPU is good enough that they don't know they are missing anything. Especially if they have enough memory and an SSD.

I have no issues using my 2013 Macbook Pro for 95% of the tasks. For everything else I can run it on cloud. This is also why older Macbooks retain value with a solid price floor even after seven years.
Post reply on HN