Hacker News Reader

Comment by dis-sys | Hacker News Reader

Intel worked very hard to earn this. For the last decade, they basically did nothing, it was so bad to the extent that you can dig out a 10-years old Q6600 then get yourself a decent nvidia video card and still hit 60fps on average on latest triple-A game titles.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1313-intel-q6600-ten-years-...

View on HN

Hmm, the article states the ten years old Q6600 won't cut it, but

"Soldiering on with its undying attitude, the 2500K consistently out-edged the i3-6100 and in titles such as Overwatch and Total War: Warhammer, the Sandy Bridge quad-core stayed several steps ahead. Considering how heavily the 2500K can be overclocked, those who invested in this processor six years [ago] are probably still grinning today."

Yep! I still have my i7 2600K running at 4+ GHz and Ryzen is the only thing that has made me even consider upgrading.

You know it's bad when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is outperforming desktop Intel CPUs in annual gains.

Hehe, I just upgraded my 2400 to a used 2700K. I have Samsung NVMe storage (though not for the boot drive), 16G of RAM and an nvidia 1070 in there. It does everything I can throw at it quite marvellously.

I have no reason to change the base system any time soon, or move to a newer intel or amd architecture.

(I really wanted a used e3-1290 v2 but those are still quite pricey, for an old chip)

> (I really wanted a used e3-1290 v2 but those are still quite pricey, for an old chip)

The price for used Intel chips is ridiculous. I bought a Dell R210 II and was looking to upgrade from the E3-1220v1 to an E3 v2 chip, but the cheapest ones available are still selling for $90+ USD (this is a CPU released 5 years ago).

The retail price of the E3-1220v2 new, in 2012, was $189. Heck, the E3-1220Lv2 was $189 retail and sells today for $150!

5 years later and it hasn't even lost half its value. Insane what stagnation in the CPU market has done to resale prices...

Yeah, the 1290v2s were still over £200, even the v1 was around that mark and the 3770k was still around £150... I managed to bag the 2700k for 100, and get 40 for my 2400.

Crazy for such old chips, but then they are still good!

i7-920 in my home machine here. Maxed out at 24GB of RAM for when I run a handful of VMs. But I'm not planning on upgrading anytime soon! Handles Overwatch and pubg just fine too.

I have the same i7-920 (overclocked at 3GHz) with 12Gb RAM. I have it since 2008 and I'm not planning to replace it anytime soon.

i7-860 (2.8ghz) and it's been "put to stud" as my web/SQL server, gaming server (Minecraft/ARK/whatever), and hosts my bot, from a closet in my apartment. The only reason I upgraded was to get something stock 3+ GHz, with a newer motherboard for a 1080.

Mine's OC'd to 3.66ghz, but I also added a SATA3 and USB 3.1 expansion card which has helped to keep it current.

I think this is as far as I can take it though. It'll never be able to boot off an NVMe drive, which I'll definitely grab for my next machine. My XPS 15 has one and there's a subtle but noticeable difference in snappy-ness.

Had the same, but recently upgraded to a HP workstation, found a decent deal on eBay.

https://hardwareisboring.blogspot.com/2016/06/hp-z440.html

I'm still running on a Core 2 Quad and while I don't game much, I can still handle my programming and browsing workload just fine. The best upgrade you can get is solid state storage, I/O is still the biggest bottleneck.

Massive grin here. Bought mine used for 100€ and it's been fantastic.

That's an oddly specific reference to read here, since I'm typing this on a Q6700. I have definitely noticed the same thing as this machine is still perfectly usable and faster than quite a few modern laptops.

Of course, this years processors are faster, but I can't imagine another point in time when ten years of progress would produce so little effective change.

As 3D programming enthusiast and former gamer, I never understood the appeal of the lame 3D support on Intel chips, specially their OpenGL bugs like lying about supported hardware features.

The only positive thing that they have going for them is that at some point they decided to start supporting open source drivers for Linux.

Most people just want their desktop's drop shadows and window dragging effects to work fast enough. There's plenty of appeal in saving battery and money from a faster GPU that you aren't going to use.

That's a ridiculous statement. Look at the benchmarks:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1038&cmp[]=30...

That's a nearly 8X difference in performance.

Probably has nothing to do with the slow AMD Cpus in both largest consoles.

Intel would do well to bring Linus Sebastian on board as a paid advisor to help them strategize for how to embrace what's left of their market.

Please don't! They end up putting RGB LEDS on the CPU die!

No amount of marketing veneer is going to fix this.

He is already being paid by Intel (among other brands, pushing products is how you make money on YT nowadays).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com