Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:23 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:31 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:25 pm
Posts: 5
topic says it all.. I'm about to do a complete rebuild of my destop rig, but after doing research, it looks like Intel is going to release its x99 chipset anytime now, and doing a haswell refresh. I really have the bug and want to start buying parts, but if they're coming out with this I the next few months, am I going to regret being stuck with the old chipset?
This is not a budget build -- I'm building something similar to the ultra build, and willing to throw around $5k total at the pborject.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:11 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:20 pm
Posts: 115
I built my 77 or ivy bridge build as haswell started busting out on the market in 2013. I am still extremely happy with my build. tying to stay on the bleeding edge is gonna be hell on you as the changes will occur fast and furious. If you want the latest and can wait go for it but know it'll not be the latest and greatest in about a year. If not find the best of current parts and enjoy your build. I could be wrong but I doubt the performance changes will be so amazing you cream your jeans. But others may disagree.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:53 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5266
Processor performance after the $220 mark decreases rapidly with how much you pay, at least for gaming performance. In multi-threaded tasks, it might be worthwhile to spend the extra money on the parts. But it also depends on how much your time is worth.

In all honesty, don't get "ultra" builds unless you have a reason to actually use that performance. Games are heavily GPU bottlenecked.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:19 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:25 pm
Posts: 5
I know,I've been doing this for awhile. I typically spend a bunch of money every few years on an architecture that's on the upswing, and then just upgrade as the years go on. I've been using my current tyan s2150 mobo/xenon chip since '07. My only concern with the current chipset is that its on its way out, and that even if I don't build on the bleeding edge, I'm out of luck with upgrades in less than a year, at least if I wait for x99, I'll have some upgrade room when I get the bug.

Anyway, seems like I'm answering my own questions.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:01 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5266
Upgrade what? The CPU? Unfortunately on both fronts, there's really no reason to upgrade the CPU any more, what with either the companies changing the socket entirely (Intel does every Tick, AMD is talking out of their ass because none of their recent sockets lived past one generation) or it provides minimal performance increases. If you're already at the high end, then upgrading to another high end part doesn't seem to cut it anymore these days.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:18 am 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 3028
Location: Central Florida
I would only wait if you're doing any kind of high end openly multi-threaded (can utilize as many threads as you can provide) tasks on a regular basis.

As LatiosXT alluded to, there are virtually no advantages with an "ultra" build for anything that cannot use at least 8 threads, not even when it comes to future-proofing... it'll be at least 10 more years before dual-threaded software becomes commonplace. Hell, 64bit consumer OS's have been available for 10 + years already, & 99% of 64bit software is still just converted from the 32bit source code.

Except for boosting performance in video editing/encoding, content creation, & a small hand full of other very specific tasks, most people who have built or bought a Haskell based desktop are not going to have a need to upgrade for the next 10 - 12 years, beyond dropping in a new GPU for improved gaming performance.

Even the Phenom II 1055t system @ 3ghz I built in 2010 still plays modern games just as well as my LGA2011 encoding rig when using the same GPU.

Most software developers are just lagging too far behind the curve right now & only a hand-full are even starting to consider native 64bit multi-threaded support.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:22 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5266
chaosdsm wrote:
Most software developers are just lagging too far behind the curve right now & only a hand-full are even starting to consider native 64bit multi-threaded support.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say.

Most of the software many people use on their computers are I/O bound and are just sitting there waiting for you to make an input. And often times they're not even using a lot of RAM to justify going 64-bit (which there are only two primary benefits: natively handling 64-bit data types and expanded memory access). Going 64-bit doesn't automatically translate into better performance. And in my last job, I rarely had to use anything beyond 16-bit data, on a 32-bit processor no less.

The multi-threaded support is another thing, but again, since most programs we use are I/O bound, it doesn't matter. As far as games are concerned, considering that everyone is pushing to lower the CPU requirement bar even further (because most of it is API overhead)... well there you go.

What I believe is going on is a combination of running out of hardware techniques (there hasn't been a major breakthrough in processor architecture since multi-core design) and there's enough eggheads to create well optimized software that's reached a "good enough" point and optimizing it further takes more resources than is worth. Like the whole "What the fuck" reverse square algorithm. It's fast, it's accurate, and while I'm sure you can find something even better, it does what it does well.

Or it's like we could use gold or silver instead of copper for electrical and thermal applications, but they cost too much to justify how much more "performance" they give.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:25 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:25 pm
Posts: 5
LatiosXT wrote:
chaosdsm wrote:
Most software developers are just lagging too far behind the curve right now & only a hand-full are even starting to consider native 64bit multi-threaded support.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say.

Most of the software many people use on their computers are I/O bound and are just sitting there waiting for you to make an input. And often times they're not even using a lot of RAM to justify going 64-bit (which there are only two primary benefits: natively handling 64-bit data types and expanded memory access). Going 64-bit doesn't automatically translate into better performance. And in my last job, I rarely had to use anything beyond 16-bit data, on a 32-bit processor no less.

The multi-threaded support is another thing, but again, since most programs we use are I/O bound, it doesn't matter. As far as games are concerned, considering that everyone is pushing to lower the CPU requirement bar even further (because most of it is API overhead)... well there you go.

What I believe is going on is a combination of running out of hardware techniques (there hasn't been a major breakthrough in processor architecture since multi-core design) and there's enough eggheads to create well optimized software that's reached a "good enough" point and optimizing it further takes more resources than is worth. Like the whole "What the fuck" reverse square algorithm. It's fast, it's accurate, and while I'm sure you can find something even better, it does what it does well.
Or it's like we could use gold or silver instead of copper for electrical and thermal applications, but they cost too much to justify how much more "performance" they give.



Sooooo... you think x99 is worth the wait?
Anyway, I've decided I am going to wait... I'll get the best x99 board I can when they come out, one of the refreshed haswell octocore chips, and stick with 2 780ti gpus... that way, I can have an upgrade path for broadwell chips (hopefully).


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:11 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5266
Do I think it's worth the wait?

No. :D


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: should I wait for x99?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:28 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:20 pm
Posts: 115
I likely won't update my ivy bridge for a while and if i do only to a better ivy bridge proc and it ought to last me a while. Unless a major change in computers rolls in. I suspect my main changes will be the GPU. In short be cautious about swapping out the motherboard.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group