On 7/28/19 11:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
Hi All,

I got talking to a guy yesterday whilst handing out cards.
He started expounding on how he built his own computer
and from what I saw, he did a pretty good job. He was
able to move 3D graphics in real time.

The thing he was the most proud of was the "generation"
of the processors he picks.Â* I presume he means Intel's
processors.

Now, to me the generation of the processor does not mean a
lot.Â* When building a customer computer, I first find the
motherboard I want and then look at the specs to see what
processor it takes.Â* Then I check my suppliers stock to see
what is in stick and what is the best value for what is
needed. This usually is the current generation and one back.

As far a generation of processors goes, the higher the generation,
the better the power consumption.Â* I haven't seen more than four
cores making any practical difference with Windows.Â* And
multi-threading doesn't seem to matter on Windows after
four real cores (Linux does make a big difference).

As far a performance goes, the big bottleneck it the hard
drive.Â* I adore using NVMe drives ans they make a YUGE difference.
Next would be the memory bus speed.Â* Last of all would be
the generation of the processor.

I go for the motherboard that meets the customer's needs.
To me the generator of the processor is what fits on the
motherboard.

Am I missing something?Â* Does the "generation" of the processor
really make that much difference?

-T


OK, here is a table I found, one where I didn't
have to work very hard.

The number on the right, is "normalized" for frequency.
Why I am doing that, is to see whether the arch of the
processor is magically more powerful than previous generations.

I moved the items around in the table a bit, since a "simple-minded"
classification scheme someone mentioned, isn't exactly right. The
"lead digit" in the model number, isn't the generation. It's
close, but they spread the models around. Really, no method
is a reliable method at this level (and on the Ark web pages
at Intel, Intel has on purpose not put that info in the
entries of the *expensive* processors). And we know that
some devices, like say comparing an IvyBridge to an IvyBridgeE,
they could in fact be different generations. The E,X,EX and
so on, usually got a crusty chipset with spiffy features
missing, and you tended to get that feeling that the
high end stuff came out on a different process or node.

https://cpugrade.com/articles/cinebe...arison-graphs/

223 9900K 5.00GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 223/5Â*Â*Â* =44.6
201 8700K 4.70GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 201/4.7Â* =42.8
189 7700K 4.59Ghz Kaby LakeÂ*Â*Â* 7thÂ* 2016-17Â*Â* 189/4.59 =41.1
190 9900X 4.40GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 190/4.40 =43.2
184 7900X 4.30GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 184/4.30 =42.8
182 6700K 4.20GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 6thÂ* 2015-16Â*Â* 182/4.20 =43.3
155 6900K 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 155/3.70 =41.9
153 5775C 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â* 5thÂ* 2014-15Â*Â* 153/3.70 =41.4
141 5960X 3.50Ghz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2013Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 141/3.50 =40.3
159 4770K 3.90GHz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 159/3.90 =40.8
144 4960X 4.00Ghz Ivy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2012Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 144/4.00 =36.0
135 3960X 3.90GHz Sandy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 135/3.90 =34.6
131 2600K 3.80Ghz Sandy bridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2011Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 131/3.80 =34.5

But anyway, the message in that table, is for the most part,
innovation stopped around Haswell or so.

It's hard to explain why the top item in the table
is improved. Why the 9900K is better than the 8700K.
Unless the memory on the two systems was quite different
or something. There just isn't the level of detail
to spot a difference. Maybe they're actually
different tech, or the mesh bus setup is different,
or... whatever.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13591...-power-for-sff


Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6Â*Â* 7Â*Â* 8
Â*Â* Freq 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 3.6 3.6

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859...nitial-numbers


Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6
Â*Â* Freq 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3

If I had a Haswell, I probably wouldn't be
feeling too bad at this point.

Â*Â* Paul

Great chart. Thank you! Shows only real difference
is clock speed.

My own system uses a Xeon e3-1245-6 (supports ECC memory) :

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...apkw=e3-1245v6

And an NVMe hard drive with 2400 Mhz 16 GB ECC memory. It
is over a year old now and it still tickles me every time
I use it. Faster than the dickens.

And I still have to use all 16 GB even with a bunch of programs open
and Fedora, W-7, W-Nein (w10) running in VM's.