Guys, as interesting as the chit chat is, there is an entire offtopic thread specifically for that. Back to topic? AMD Athlon II X3 460 at 3.4ghz, will not stake even a 5% overclock without BSOD left right and centre. Intel Core i3-3217u at 1.8ghz Intel Atom Z3735G at 1.83ghz on turbo (1.33 base) Intel Core2Duo T7700 at 2.4ghz Broadcom BCM2835 at 800Mhz (overclocked from 700). ^I use all of these
Not really. In order: Desktop Laptop Windows tablet (awesome little thing, the atom running windows 10 in a small form factor device is just fine) Macbook Raspberry pi (I actually have 2).
You can clock your RasPi even higher (1Ghz) if you have some passive coolers. But why the heck does that desktop have an old Athlon three-core? First gen if I'm right. EDIT: I have two RasPis too. They are just nice little things. You can use them for everything.
@Arne. Note Athlon II. Second gen, AM3+ socket. It has it because it was the cheapest CPU I could get 4 years ago on my budget which was virtually nothing. My budget was so low I couldn't afford to get a hard disk and reused an 80gb one - not a typo, I couldnt afford to get a GPU so would run skyrim on integrated graphics. While 1 pi is cooled, the other is not and I kinda like em matching. Nor can I justify cooling the non cooled one when I have to hand it back to lecturer at end of the term. While I do believe theres been enough offtopic chitchat from my single post suggesting we end the fucking off topic chitchat/shitposting. I would like to say 1 futher thing. My list up there proves how little clock speeds are on their own as a performance metric. Single threaded, my laptop is faster than my macbook. Yet my laptop runs a slower clockspeed. Multithreaded, the tablet can match the macbook, lower clockspeed, newer architecture (although still somewhat simpler than its i3/i5/i7 counterparts) but more importantly, 4 cores, the macbook struggles with multiple chrome tabs whereas the tablet keeps on running (actually it starts to run out of ram, but CPU wise its fine). Single threaded though, yeah the atom might be newer, but it is the slower chip in the intel lineup and its also not intended to be a performance part, the C2D can probably give it a run for its money still, or it may not, dunno, needs benchmarking, maybe once I bootcamp the mac I'll test it. Multithreaded, my laptop is faster than my desktop, dualcore + HT at 1.8 ghz on a much fancier architecture simply hammering AMD (although the AMD is from the era before they started crippling with siamese twin cores). Single threaded, the laptop and macbook arent far behind it. Clock speeds, mean nothing.
Well, you have to note then, that a Broadwell CPU (iX 5XXX) has way more performance than a similar Skylake CPU (iX 6XXX), and definitely by far more than a Haswell (iX 4XXX); sadly there are very little Braoadwells, so I'm sticking to the Skylake. Should I also point out that, because the older version had more power, Intel didn'tt release the official benchmarks of the Broadwell generation until the people had seen the benchmarks of the Skylake CPUs and the fact that "they were fairly better than the old Haswells" and that the Skylakes are, because of that, almost always compared to the Haswells which are fairly slower? @Michaelflat Interesting, I never experienced that. Little side note: The best thing you can do to improve your Pi's performance is not raising the clock speed, but taking the best possible SD-card, as the SD is almost always the systems' bottleneck. Here's someone who compared different cards for the Pi: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/raspberry-pi-microsd-card @SixSixSevenSeven As long as we are talking about CPU clocks and what they tell us about that certain processor (like I said, a Haswell has to have slightly higher clocked than a Broadwell to match the performance [although the difference is not notable when gaming]), it is not off topic; what is off topic is the giant amount of crap that I posted up there.
The i7-5820K, 5930K and 5960X are Haswell-E, not Broadwell. IPC is about the same as Haswell. There are only two Broadwell desktop CPUs (i5-5675C and i7-5775C), probably not even for sale since they were released very late and perform much worse than their Haswell and Skylake counterparts, due to much lower clock speeds and worse overclocking (IPC was about 5% better which is barely an improvement), as well as being much more expensive. Anyway, back on topic. I also have a Core 2 Quad Q6600 @2.4 GHz. Stock because OEM board can't OC.
Okay? That does not match what I've read in a computer magazine. I think I should read the article again right now. Also: Should I scrap that old build with the AMD Phenom II X4 965 overclocked @3.7Ghz and the sh*tty R7 240 2GB now that you're talking about emergency backup PCs? It's still working incredibly well.
Broadwell CPUs do have much better integrated graphics (Iris Pro) than Haswell and Skylake. CPU performance however is not much better than Haswell and definitely worse than Skylake. Also, I did miss a few CPUs - i7-5775R, i5-5675R and i5-5575R. Never seen anyone actually use Broadwell in a desktop build myself though.
Mhm. Still searching for the article, so I have a reason to really slap myself, which I can't without proof that I read it totally wrong.....
Intels core lineup in terms of computing performance really hasn't changed much, my 2600 isn't that much slower than a 4790k. A lot of people still use sandy bridge for gaming today.
Well it's by no means different with AMDs, someone said that the only thing that outruns old Phenoms are modern FXs. It's kind of miserable how the CPUs just kinda reach their physical limit. I think the only thing that really would improve performance right now would be massive multithreading (Xeon...), but that's not supported by a lot of games.
we're reaching a point in technology where our CPU's are just plain fast enough for most everyday use and even gaming, only thing that constantly needs improvement now is graphics cards. Well as far as Intel goes. AMD's lineup is very outdated now especially the FX series, no offense to anyone who uses FX series chips, but AMD is overdue a major update to their CPU lineup. OT got my Pentium MMX 150 to 200Mhz.
Well. When it's about graphics cars, AMD is a serious concurrent, actually. For example, it's not worth buying a GTX960 instead of an R9 380/380X or a GTX980 instead of an R9 390. Also, AMD has super-extreme cards like the R9 Fury/Fury X/Nano and multi- thread cards like the R9 290X2 that give the GTX980Ti and GTX Titan X a hard time. Both brands shouldn't get too cocky about it though. Let's just say, Intels are those that you buy for power (gaming) or for Notebooks/Tablets/Smartphones, and AMDs are for budget builds, as long as you don't manage to overdo it so much that you just need to spend hundreds on your PSU. Although that Intels-are-expensive-as-crap-effect was way bigger at some point. WAY bigger.
The 295x2 is literally two 290x's in crossfire on a single board. About as powerful as a single 980 Ti for about the same price, twice the TDP. Fury X is nice but expensive, and just like the Titan X pointless because the 980 Ti exists. 390, also pointless, the 970 is just as good for the same price and doesn't have a ridiculous 275W TDP. You were probably thinking of the 390X, about the same performance as a 980 for a lot less. Anyway. This is a thread about CPU clocks. Not general computer talk. Let's stop derailing it.
