I was wondering if someone could help me understand what has been going on in the last 5-6 years in regards to CPU's.
A bit of a back story. I work as 3D artist and I am all about CPU power. Generally the faster/more cores my CPU is/has the faster I can render out something (unless it is using the GPU). But I'm not made of money, so I only upgrade every 5-6 years or so. When I do upgrade, I typically buy low end of the high range CPUs. Right around $300-$350.
On 9/16/2003 I bought a p4 3.06Ghz HT > here's a benchmark
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?....00GHz&id=1074
Average CPU Mark - 361
I waited a long time to upgrade, waited for a big jump in CPU architecture to warrant dropping over a grand on a new PC.
That day came on 2/5/2009. I bought a core i7-920 > here's a benchmark http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...2.67GHz&id=834
Average CPU MARK - 5,000
The core i7 920 according to these benchmarks was 12 times faster than my Pentium 4 and you know what, it felt like it.
It's been 5 years since 2009 and the best CPU on www.cpubenchmarks.net for my price range ($300-$350) is the Intel Core i7-4770K
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?....50GHz&id=1919
Average CPU Mark - 10,396
That's only a little over twice as fast as the core i7 920! Or am I missing something?
So here's my question, why did a 5.4 year gap between the p4 3.0HT and the core i7 920 result in a 12x performance but a 5.0 year gap between the core i7 920 and the core i7 3930K only result in a 2x Performance? That is a pretty huge gap there. It doesn't seem like Moore's law is working at all. And it makes me sad panda
Thanks!
A bit of a back story. I work as 3D artist and I am all about CPU power. Generally the faster/more cores my CPU is/has the faster I can render out something (unless it is using the GPU). But I'm not made of money, so I only upgrade every 5-6 years or so. When I do upgrade, I typically buy low end of the high range CPUs. Right around $300-$350.
On 9/16/2003 I bought a p4 3.06Ghz HT > here's a benchmark
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?....00GHz&id=1074
Average CPU Mark - 361
I waited a long time to upgrade, waited for a big jump in CPU architecture to warrant dropping over a grand on a new PC.
That day came on 2/5/2009. I bought a core i7-920 > here's a benchmark http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...2.67GHz&id=834
Average CPU MARK - 5,000
The core i7 920 according to these benchmarks was 12 times faster than my Pentium 4 and you know what, it felt like it.
It's been 5 years since 2009 and the best CPU on www.cpubenchmarks.net for my price range ($300-$350) is the Intel Core i7-4770K
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?....50GHz&id=1919
Average CPU Mark - 10,396
That's only a little over twice as fast as the core i7 920! Or am I missing something?
So here's my question, why did a 5.4 year gap between the p4 3.0HT and the core i7 920 result in a 12x performance but a 5.0 year gap between the core i7 920 and the core i7 3930K only result in a 2x Performance? That is a pretty huge gap there. It doesn't seem like Moore's law is working at all. And it makes me sad panda
Thanks!
Comment