Poll: What generation of Intel CPU powers your main PC?

The tea leaves suggest next year will bring significant new products from Intel and AMD in the desktop CPU space. As we start getting ready for testing these next-generation CPUs, we want to get an idea of the age of the Intel chips that power our readers' main PCs.

The performance of Sandy Bridge and its Ivy Bridge follow-up, along with the less-robust performance increases offered in subsequent generations of Intel processors, have likely allowed a number of our readers to invest their hardware budgets into other components like adaptive-refresh-rate monitors, next-generation storage devices, or higher-end graphics cards.

Have you stuck with an older Intel chip in favor of newer components elsewhere in your rig, or have you recently built a brand-new PC with all the trimmings? Let us know what generation of Intel CPU powers your main PC using the poll options below.

Comments closed
    • deruberhanyok
    • 3 years ago

    All 135 people who were able to find Broadwell processors are TR readers! neat!

    • ultima_trev
    • 3 years ago

    Skylake.

    Isn’t Lynnfield in the same generation as Nehalem (originally debuted as Bloomfield)? Westmere was the refresh of Bloomfield, even though that only brought six cores, not IPC improvements.

    Bloomfield: 4 core, triple channel
    Lynnfield: 2 or 4 core, dual channel
    Westmere: 6 core, triple channel

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      Westmere was a 32nm die-shrink of Nehalem architecture. The process allowed Intel to give it two extra cores for the workstation/server-tier version of the silicon. While the desktop version “Clarkdale”, allowed Intel to throw in an intergrated GPU at the cost of removing two of the cores.

    • Entr0py
    • 3 years ago

    Still running a 2500k and p67 board I got for $40 after my free 3930k died.

    I’m waiting for Zen. I’m probably going to get it if any of the rumors are close to true. If it’s not that good, I might wait for price wars. CPUs are really expensive right now…

    • strangerguy
    • 3 years ago

    Still rocking a stock 4790K. Not interested in upgrading anytime soon.

    As for Zen, when AMD’s had a technological parity advantage like A64 vs P4 and GCN vs Fermi they sold at a significant premium vs the competition, and the rumored 8C/16T for <$300 isn’t the case, so I’m not expecting any miracles there to change my mind.

      • anotherengineer
      • 3 years ago

      Still rocking a stock 955BE from August 2009 and not interested in upgrading anytime soon. The only time the cpu really works is the odd time I play a game, and even then it’s usually only 50%.

      I am more interested in upgrading the monitor, or keyboard or something other than CPU.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 3 years ago

        The 50% usage is very likely a result of two of your four 3.2 GHz cores running at maximum. Many games have two major threads – one that drives the graphics as fast as it can and one that runs the rest of the game.

        Spring of 2017 may be a good time for an upgrade.

        • Firestarter
        • 3 years ago

        50% usage doesn’t mean your CPU is not a bottleneck

        • DPete27
        • 3 years ago

        You could literally double your fps in games by upgrading to an Intel i3 today.

    • Veerappan
    • 3 years ago

    I’m still running my Phenom II x6 1055t (w/ Radeon 7850, and an SSD boot drive).

    Please, Zen, don’t suck… I’m rebuilding my PC this winter/spring anyway, and I’d like to go AMD. But I still need the price/performance to make it worth my while.

      • Mr Bill
      • 3 years ago

      Ditto with an X6 1100T and Radeon 7870 and CPU before that an X4 955BE.

    • CrazyElf
    • 3 years ago

    I would like to split it between the Sandy Bridge E (or Ivy Bridge E) and Haswell E (or Broadwell E).

    I guess that does make a difference in some regards.

    • moose17145
    • 3 years ago

    Broadwell-E, so broadwell i guess.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 3 years ago

    The CPU fan on my Q6600 died about 3 months ago so I haven’t used it in that time……and I’m yet to bother replacing it. I want a new gaming box but with Karma as our only Internet I don’t know if it would be worth it

    • Alexko
    • 3 years ago

    Penryn, 2 cores at 3.0GHz. Not exactly blazing fast, but it does the job, for now. I’ll likely upgrade within 12~24 months.

    • Forge
    • 3 years ago

    I put Haswell. That’s the closest thing to the Devil’s Canyon 4790K I have downstairs (that plus 32GB of ram and multiple SSDs, doing virtualization and passthrough woo!!!), but I probably spend more time on my MBP than anything else. i7-4980HQ is Crystalwell, another entry that’s not on the list. I think they’re both Haswells when the chips are down, though.

    • VincentHanna
    • 3 years ago

    Sandy – E oc to 4.6ghz.

    Anything since would literally be a downgrade.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      If you need more cores then current Broadwell-E and soon Skylake-EP blow that Sandy-E out of the water.

      Haswell and Skylake chips at similar clockspeeds are faster at anything that doesn’t involve more than eight threads, but you do lose some PCIe lanes (40 lanes on SB-E versus 24/30 found on Haswell/Skylake platforms) but you cannot take advantage of native NVM Express support though.

        • VincentHanna
        • 3 years ago

        The key to that phrase is “at similar clock speeds.” While I run my system at 4.6ghz, I have, in the past gotten it to run at 5.1ghz stable (but if you know how voltage offset works that is scary)… meanwhile everything I read about the newer chips,[url=http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,review-33569-9.html<] like broadwell e [/url<] make it seem very unlikely that I would even get to 4.6, especially since I don't have a "high end watercooling setup" like tom's hardware does. [quote<] No matter how much voltage we pushed through this CPU, our highest stable overclock was 4.3GHz. Beyond that, the system wouldn’t even boot up. [/quote<] More cores are nice, I guess, but you do hit diminishing returns at a certain point.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          Skylake and Haswell chips can run at 4.5Ghz and beyond if you are brave enough and have sufficient cooling. (22nm and 14nm process need tons of volts if you want to keep stable at high clockspeed)

          Broadwell-Es were binned for core count rather then pure clockspeed so it isn’t really that much of a shocker that they don’t overclock well at all.

      • oldDummy
      • 3 years ago

      i7-3970 oc 4.1

        • VincentHanna
        • 3 years ago

        I have yet to see a SBE CPU that couldn’t overclock to 4.5ghz at stock settings…

        Even the 1 click mobo “optimizers” can do better than 4.1.

          • oldDummy
          • 3 years ago

          My main box.
          It’s fast, cool and stable.
          Wasn’t stable at single click oc to 4.5Ghz …[think 125 strap?]
          it ran but wasn’t worth it.
          they get toasty pretty quick.

          with 12 HT cores it’s a beast when stock.
          Not my newest rig but my main one.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          I have read reports of SB-E silicon that couldn’t overclock for jack. It is just nature of the game. There’s a reason why overclocking is YMMV.

    • Laykun
    • 3 years ago

    Switched from an i7 980x to an i7 6700k and to be honest I generally do not notice the difference at all. If I didn’t need a native SATA3 controller I would probably still be on the 980x.

    I’ll be honest, as a gamer and a developer upgrading the CPU has felt particularly pointless in the last 5 years.

    I’ve been restoring an old Macintosh LCIII recently so have had to do quite a bit of research into the hardware and what upgrades are possible. I miss the days when going from a 68030 to a 68040 literally doubles the IPC of the CPU, unlike today where we get bugger all, in the region of maybe 10% between generations and not really any appreciable clock boost either.

    • Ninjitsu
    • 3 years ago

    Lynnfield was the codename for 1st gen i5s, not the u-arch (which was Nehalem).

    • SoM
    • 3 years ago

    skylake i7 6700k here, and love it since i’ve switched from an AMD phenom 2

    • rudimentary_lathe
    • 3 years ago

    Haswell Xeon FTW. Cheering on AMD Zen so that I won’t have to sell a kidney for my next CPU upgrade.

    • spiritwalker2222
    • 3 years ago

    What, no option for early Kaby lake adopters?

    • madtronik
    • 3 years ago

    Modded Harpertown Xeon FTW! (OC’ed, of course)

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    Still running an old-fanged 3570K here (Ivy Bridge).

    The only thing that an upgrade would bring me is NVM Express support and Thunderbolt 3.

      • Khali
      • 3 years ago

      Ditto, still running my 3570K and it does everything I need it to. Not finding much of a reason to even consider getting anything newer at this point.

    • reever
    • 3 years ago

    Pentium II Celeron

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      While a joke, but had for some time running Pentium II/III under Windows 7. Not exactly fun. Based on testing bare minimum for usable Windows 7 is Pentium III Coppermine 650MHz, but 933 is almost good. Pentium II is problematic due to lack of SSE, Katmai is bad due to slow L2 and Coppermine Celerons have L2 too small.

      And yes, I tested that all… (Deschutes, Mendocino, Katmai, Coppermine) Can’t test Tualatin. (Don’t have one nor stable mainboard)

    • ozzuneoj
    • 3 years ago

    Still on a 2500K @ 4.2Ghz that I’ve had since 2011.

    There are so many conflicting reviews and benchmarks around that I’m still unsure of how much improvement is to be had with something newer… especially since I don’t play any AAA games with high requirements.

    Some benchmarks I’ve seen (they tend to be the ones on youtube with side by side gameplay and probably little care taken to ensure that all else is equal) would have me believe that a Skylake i5 or i7 will double my performance in many situations… where as the benchmarks on sites like this rarely show any large difference.

    Given the massive popularity of these relatively old CPUs, I’d like to humbly request that any further CPU benchmarks done on this site also include 2500K and 2600K overclocked (average seems to be 4.2-4.5Ghz with either) results. It would tell a lot about a new CPU if the most popular “old” CPUs offer competitive performance, as anyone with something newer would know that theirs would be even closer. Likewise, if a 2500K is thoroughly outpaced but a 2600K can keep up, then we know that hyperthreading can salvage the performance of any Sandy, Ivy or Haswell chip in that particular situation.

      • Skid
      • 3 years ago

      Me too! Well, o/c’d to 4.3GHz.

      Ditto.

      Ditto.

      And… ummm … ditto.

        • tritonus
        • 3 years ago

        Same here, 2500K @4,3GHz since 2011, (ditto)^3.

          • ratte
          • 3 years ago

          2500k @4.2Ghz since 2011.
          And yes, would like to se this in benchmarks.

            • ozzuneoj
            • 3 years ago

            This is exactly what I’m talking about, right here:

            [url<]http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/5973-my-2500k-vs-6700k-upgrade-fps-results-hefty-fps-increase/[/url<] Where are these benchmarks on reputable sites that we all use to plan our hardware purchases?

            • Firestarter
            • 3 years ago

            these situations are the hardest and most important benchmarks for people who like to play these kind of large multiplayer games. Everytime my FPS takes a nose dive in these huge games, I want to empty my savings to buy a PC that just solves this problem with raw performance, but there is almost no data on what we need to get the best performance in large multiplayer games because it’s so hard to benchmark! I’m very tempted to just upgrade my GPU to a GTX1070 or something, but if that just means I get very pretty graphics at the same low framerates due to my i5-2500K, then I’ve just spent a lot of money and gotten nowhere.

            RAM bandwidth is another factor that seems to be important especially in these hard to benchmark areas. I suspect a good chunk of the extra performance the 6700K gets compared to the 2500K in that example in Squad is purely because of the faster RAM in the 6700K system. I suspect that the Broadwell Core i7-5775C with eDRAM also shines in these situations

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            Massive multi-player games are typically limited by performance of the client/server netcode. If you happen to be CPU-bound (client-side)then it just good, old clockspeed/IPC at work. Strategy games are in a similar predicament.

            Unfortunately, that pathway has been relatively stagnant for the past decade or so. The big drivers of CPU performance has been throwing “more cores” and “memory bandwidth”.

            • Firestarter
            • 3 years ago

            yep, so we have to look at the productivity benchmarks to get an idea how these CPUs improve in those hard to benchmark multiplayer games, because most normal game benchmarks aren’t bottlenecked enough to show much of a difference

            • ozzuneoj
            • 3 years ago

            Are there any reliable benchmarks around that actually do show over clocked performance in situations where there would be a difference? I just don’t trust these forum post reviews showing 150% increases when comparing similarly clocked Sandy and Skylake processors, yet few reputable sites seem to do similar tests.

            • Firestarter
            • 3 years ago

            Not that I know of. There’s no reproducible way to test multiplayer performance, at least not on the scale that would be useful

            One alternative way you could test is by having 2 systems side by side in the same multiplayer game with the same in-game perspective, for example as passengers in the same vehicle. It won’t be reproducible, but barring any game engine shenanigans testing the 2 systems side by side should give a good indication of the real performance difference. For example, I could imagine using Planetside 2 (notoriously CPU bound due to DX9) and putting the 2 test PCs in a sunderer (a kind of APC), and then having a third player drive them around a bit. Without any player input on the 2 testing PCs, those PCs should have as near an identical rendering and game thread workload as possible. I bet the same would be possible in Squad.

            To get reproducible tests, you’d need to record a multiplayer game and play it back, like the famous Quake 3 timedemos. I don’t think that’s feasible for any modern game engine to implement though

            • ozzuneoj
            • 3 years ago

            What about the productivity benchmarks mentioned earlier? I’d even take those at this point if they showed overclocked performance. Or RTS games? Or even a semi artificial test like a custom “CPU destroyer” level in a somewhat CPU heavy game that has an easy to use level editor… Bethesda games were always good for this due to the shoddy engine performance vs. available CPU resources… You could use the editor to lay down a ton of NPCs or something and load that level and benchmark it from a saved game.

            If none of the current methods are showing a difference, then some new benchmarks need to be developed simply to say “FYI, if you do find a massively CPU heavy scene in this game, this is how these CPUs would handle it”.

            • Firestarter
            • 3 years ago

            at stock those benchmarks show 40% + performance increases, sometimes less

            For example (multithreaded):
            [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/skylake/pov-bench.gif[/url<] (53%) [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/skylake/euler3d.gif[/url<] (50%) Or some ~single threaded ones: [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/skylake/kraken.gif[/url<] (45%) [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/skylake/cinebench-one.gif[/url<] (35%) a more useful comparison for us would involve some guesswork though, as you'd have to overclock both processors which is a process with many variables. To be really fair, you'd have to do this with a significant sample of CPUs, that'd be absolutely a ton of work just to say "yeah the newer one is still faster". But if we assume that the single threaded benchmarks were done at max turbo speed and the i6-2600K gets to 4.5ghz overclocked, then that gives the i7-2600K about 18% extra performance in those single threaded benchmarks, more for multithreaded ones as the stock turbo clock would be lower. 18% is not enough to bridge the gap to a stock clocked i7-6700K, and that i7-6700K could also be overclocked for at least 5% extra performance Trying to test all that with multiplayer games makes the numbers even more fuzzy. All I could see myself or TR doing is putting the two PCs in the same game and compare the performance directly, once at stock clocks and once at whatever overclock they feel comfortable with. My crystal ball says that the average FPS would not be significantly better on the overclocked i7-6700K system, but the minimum or 99% FPS would be a different matter.

            • ozzuneoj
            • 3 years ago

            You really can’t just estimate performance by the percentage overclocked because turbo boost is still doing its thing even on the stock CPU. I don’t think we need to go crazy here to get actual overclocked results that give a valid comparison.

            One 2500k or 2600k at a decent overclocked speed shouldn’t be much different than another st the same speed, assuming turbo is disabled. I’d be satisfied with the usual TR benchmark suite with overclocked results of those two CPUs added. If they wanted to get real crazy, they could try what you mentioned with the simultaneous multiplayer benchmark (could be quite tough) or try what I mentioned and just find a particularly CPU heavy modern game (even with a CPU heavy custom level) and add that to the mix.

            Maybe if we can actually find such a game, we could submit the idea to them more formally and solve this problem once and for all. I just want to see solid evidence of an overclocked 2500k and 2600k providing a greatly inferior gaming experience compared to something newer.

            • Firestarter
            • 3 years ago

            that 18% was assuming 3.8ghz turbo: 4.5 / 3.8 ~= 1.18. You’re right though, there’s no way of knowing without actually testing it

            • kurazarrh
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, I like how that guy’s review has absolutely no other details about his test systems. Did he hamstring the 2500k system with only 4GB of DDR3-1066 CL11 RAM but put 16GB DDR4 in the 6700k’s system? What motherboards did he use? Not to mention, he probably reinstalled/upgraded his OS when he upgraded to the 6700k and its motherboard/RAM (because no one wants old chipset drivers and Windows spam sitting around); did he have some application sucking up CPU time on his old rig?

            Sheesh.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      Skylake isn’t going to yield a 100% gain over Sandy Bridge assuming clockspeed is equal. You may get up to a 40-50% gain if the application in questions takes full advantage of Skylake architecture. You should realistically expect something closer to a 15-25% gain for majority of the mainstream stuff out there.

    • Klimax
    • 3 years ago

    “Getting by” with 5960x (@4.2). Depending what gets released at what price I’ll upgrade. AVX-512 and maybe more cores and better mainboard…

    • TwoEars
    • 3 years ago

    Went from Nehalem –> Devil’s Canyon.

    Might go Devil’s Canyon –> Cannonlake next.

    Or I might wait, we’ll see. Preferably I’d like to see us hit 5 GHz on air before I upgrade.

      • Jigar
      • 3 years ago

      Currently using i5 4670K @ 5GHZ on air 😉

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    AMD makes cheese?? Didn’t know that.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      AMD runs it’s development centre along the lines of a monastery. They contemplate Zen while making cheese by the light of Polaris and Vega.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Considering this poll covers several years and generations of processors, it’s a sad state of affairs to see the total number of AMD users comprise just 8% of the results as of this post, even considering that this is just TR and not the overall market. I imagine there are more AMD users on the enthusiast side than on the ‘who cares what CPU is in there’ part of the market.

    • Zizy
    • 3 years ago

    Ye olde i7 860. Buying a new one, but I have been doing this for a while. I will probably finally buy something in summer next year. Zen (more likely, assuming it is not BD level of fail) or Kaby Lake if Zen does suck.

    WTF @ poll? Lynnfield = Nehalem for desktops (i5 7xx and i7 8xx). With Nehalem, do you actually mean Bloomfield (i7-9xx)?

    • Blazex
    • 3 years ago

    Sittin’ happy with an fx8350, don’t plan on budging for a bit longer.

    it does what it needs to do perfectly swell. 🙂

    • jackbomb
    • 3 years ago

    Ivy Bridge-E
    4930K @ 4.3GHz. Still plenty of power.

    • Ifalna
    • 3 years ago

    My loyal companion is powered by a 3570K.
    And I don’t expect that to change within the next 4 years either. (Unless sth breaks down ofc)

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    FX-8350 user here. Will probably stick with it for a good while longer. It plays Leisure Suit Larry just fine.

    • adisor19
    • 3 years ago

    Umm, why is Arrandale not one of the options ?!

    Adi

      • srg86
      • 3 years ago

      You mean Clarkdale/Arrandale. A good point.

      Arrandale was mobile, but Clarkdale was used in Desktops. It had integrated graphics.

    • maasenstodt
    • 3 years ago

    My last CPU upgrade was to go from a Phenom II x3 720 to a x6 1100T. I’ll probably take a hard look at Zen, but I’m still not really hurting for performance for my tasks.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Unless you’re very demanding the 1100T should still be a perfectly serviceable CPU. I also came from a 720 and my 8350 wasn’t exactly a critical purchase, but I’ve been using it for almost 4 years now and will probably use it for a few more years. I just can’t justify an upgrade even if Zen matches Intel. If I really needed the added performance I would’ve bought an i7 already.

    • Billstevens
    • 3 years ago

    Wow with the second highest cpu at around 5 generations old its pretty clear Intel isn’t getting much out of enthusiasts. I suppose I haven’t been excited about a CPU in a real long time. At least for games.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      “Generations” don’t mean much anymore. Like consumer electronics and cellphones, Intel feels it needs a higher model number every year. And BTW, is 5xxx/Broadwell even a generation? 🙂

    • Vaughn
    • 3 years ago

    I’m running a i7-970 so since Gulftown is missing from the list I choose Nehalem.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      Weren’t Gulftown and Westmere initially called Nehalem-C?

        • Dudeface
        • 3 years ago

        Yep, but considering Lynnfield is just the desktop variant of Nehalem, while Westmere was the 32nm shrink ‘Tick’ of Nehalem, not sure why Lynnfield is there and Westmere isn’t.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          Clarkdale were “desktop” version of Westmere. The only difference is that they were dual-core only but had an integrated GPU that required the revamp Socket1156.

            • Dudeface
            • 3 years ago

            Of course, but my point was, its strange to list Nehalem and Lynnfield instead of Nehalem and Westmere. Westmere is to Nehalem what Ivy bridge is to Sandy bridge.

            • jihadjoe
            • 3 years ago

            Ok, that makes sense. I was thinking more along the lines of Desktop vs HEDT, but you’re right the rest of the CPUs aren’t divided on generations, not market segment.

        • Vaughn
        • 3 years ago

        according to wiki yes

        [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmere_(microarchitecture)[/url<]

      • Dudeface
      • 3 years ago

      Yup, I’m running a X5660 @ 4.6Ghz, and theres no Westmere-EP/Gulftown option, so Nehalem it is

    • Mikael33
    • 3 years ago

    Went from an overclocked phenom ii 965 and Radeon 290 based rig to a 6700k and 980ti based rig, the performance difference was immense in gaming and in audio production(Cubase).

    • Cooe
    • 3 years ago

    Actually built a completely new rig from scratch this summer for the first time in a few years, and ended up building it around an i5-3570k (which I’ve got clocked at 4.6GHz) despite it being nearly 4 years old. Reason being my strict budget; I had to build the most powerful PC I could for ≈$650 and in that price range, LGA 1155 + Ivy Bridge is still the best bang for your buck PC platform around. It may not OC as nicely as Sandy Bridge did, but it makes up the difference in OC ceiling by being 5-10% faster, but far more importantly, it natively supports many of the most important modern PC technologies like PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, and SATA-III (many SB mobo’s supported the latter two, but their controllers had to be added externally to the mobo 3rd party and not integrated into the CPU and chipset like with Ivy Bridge). Honestly, my end result has been pretty ****ing amazing. An i5-3570k at 4.6GHz (which stomps all over the vastly pricier i5-6600/k (at stock)) with a CM Hyper 212 EVO cooler, an Intel DZ77SL-50K mobo, PowerColor PCS+ AMD R9 290X 4GB, 16GB (8×2) of G.Skill ARES 2133mhz DDR3 RAM, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD, 1TB 7200RPM HD, and finally an 850w Thermaltake modular PSU. Thanks to a bunch of awesome deals on used parts the final total was almost exactly $650, yet it’s faster than many new rigs costing 2-3x that much. No way in hell would this have been possible on another (Intel) platform, my OC enabled Z77 mobo was just $60 refurbished, and the i5-3570k itself was only $125; aka just $185 together which isn’t even enough to cover a 6600k by itself.

      • Skid
      • 3 years ago

      Well done!

      • juzz86
      • 3 years ago

      Fantastic machine for the price mate, you’ve done well!

    • The Wanderer
    • 3 years ago

    I’m honestly not sure what to select.

    I have a Core i7 990x Extreme; the TR article on the 980x Extreme calls that processor Gulftown, and the one on the 990x Extreme seems to call that processor one of the Westmere line (and makes very clear that it’s _not_ Sandy Bridge), but neither of those is an option here. The closest thing on the relevant chart from the first page of the 980x article is Lynnfield, but that’s listed as being for i3 and i5 processors, which the 990x definitely is not.

    I can understand omitting poll options for something that’s as much of an outlier as the Extreme-edition CPUs have been, but it does seem to leave me with no good options to choose here…

      • Dudeface
      • 3 years ago

      It seems the poll creator has mistakenly included Lynnfield (a family of processors from the Nehalem architecture) instead of making Westmere an option. Your 990X is, as you mentioned, from the Gulftown family of processors which were part of the Westmere architecture.

        • srg86
        • 3 years ago

        Clarkdale/Arrandale are also of the Westmere architecture, it was all a bit of a mess back then it seems.

        These were the lower end Core i3 etc with integrated graphics, they fitted into the same motherboards as Lynnfield.

        That said, Clarkdale, Lynnfield, Bloomfield, Gulftown all fit into the 1st Generation Core i3/i5/i7 and equivalent Xeon.

        Saw your post below, agreed. Though they all found as Gen 1, the Nehalem, Lynnfield options should really be replaced with Nehalem, Westmere.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          Just adding a little bit on the Clarkdale/Arrandale. You needed a revamp Socket 1156 in order to use the integrated GPU on them. The older Socket 1156 boards couldn’t use it but they didn’t have the backplate video outputs so it wasn’t that big of a deal.

          • Dudeface
          • 3 years ago

          It’s a little confusing because back then each family got a totally different codename. Nowadays they just add a suffix (ie. Haswell-E, Haswell-EP) or they don’t differentiate at all.

      • reckless76
      • 3 years ago

      I’m still running a i7-980x clocked to 4ghz. Runs everything great, and I’ve not found a game it’s failed to run well with my GTX970.. I’ve been debating an upgrade though. I find it hard to believe I’ll actually notice an improvement, but everyone says I will.

        • Laykun
        • 3 years ago

        You won’t.

        • Krogoth
        • 3 years ago

        Aside of getting native NVM Express and PCIe 3.0 support. There isn’t really any reason to upgrade.

    • HERETIC
    • 3 years ago

    Lucky me-don’t get to vote-my Clarkdale gets no love.
    The last over-clockable i3………………………………….

    • Kingcarcas
    • 3 years ago

    Ivy n Sandy

    • not@home
    • 3 years ago

    My new PC fund just got sacrificed to pay some unexpected medical bills. Looks like I’m stuck on my E8400 for another year.

    • odizzido
    • 3 years ago

    No love for lynfield i see. That was my vote. Maybe it’s because I don’t play newer fps games these days but new cpus still don’t offer me anywhere near the benefit of what they cost to get. I don’t expect a lot from zen but if the price is right it might be my next cpu.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      I think Nehalem was somehow forgotten between the excitement that was Core 2 and Sandy Bridge.

        • jihadjoe
        • 3 years ago

        Nehalem was pretty hot back in the day. It’s really Lynnfield that got no love because it was almost as expensive as Nehalem while being significantly crippled and late.

      • Chz
      • 3 years ago

      The Nehalem crowd would’ve been running high-end 8-thread (or more, for Gulftown), triple channel stuff and many still have it.

      The Lynnfield crowd had cheaper, more mainstream systems (and it outsold Nehalem handily at the time) and will have moved on since. I moved from an i5-750 to a 6600K around this time last year.

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    Haswell, really the last decently sized jump. Even compounding every generation since it, it barely matters, it’s more if you need other system features.

    [url<]http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9483/01%20-%20Gains%20over%20Sandy.png[/url<] See the IPC gain over Sandy Bridge, Haswell stands tall over Ivy Bridge, everything else only inches above Haswell. Kaby Lake has been even more trivial now that it's PAO and not tick tock.

    • KeillRandor
    • 3 years ago

    I’m still sitting on my i7 920 and it’s starting to feel slow/bottleneck (music (Cubase/Reason)/some games) now. The fact that it’s taken this long though is a testament to how little the CPU has been pushed that hard recently.

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      nice! i was recently given an old 920 Dell rig and was told a bowling ball fell on the mobo. i really didnt want to waste money on the only chipset that ever supported it, the x58, so i drilled a hole in the cpu corner and rounded the edges with my dremel and made it into a keychain.

    • Mad_Dane
    • 3 years ago

    My desktop case has been empty for years, main system has been a mediacenter PC with a M-ATX board.

    Definitely going to buy my next CPU with the hearth, going with AMD ZzzZZzZZzzZen for my next build, really hope the rumors hold up on the performance front.

    Voted Ivy Bridge: Got a Asus Gene V with a i7 3770K 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR3 RAM

    • barich
    • 3 years ago

    My desktop’s on Sandy Bridge-E (built in 2013), and my laptop is quad core Sandy Bridge (bought in 2011). No plans to upgrade or replace either for the foreseeable future.

    I might like to add a thin/light laptop, as my W520 is a brick, but I would need it so rarely I haven’t bothered.

    • meerkt
    • 3 years ago

    I hope I’m not ruining it for AMD.
    Main PC is AMD, but when/if I could be bothered I’d get to replacing its guts with an Intel. So I voted for that Intel.

      • WaltC
      • 3 years ago

      I’m going with Zen in a couple of months…no question about it…;) Looking forward to it.

      This poll is a bit off, though, because the way the question is asked people not using Intel processors would think there’s no option for them at all….;) You don’t find it out until you open the poll….

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        They are listed in order of IPC 😉

    • pikaporeon
    • 3 years ago

    Skylake, after an extended ride on the Bulldozer

    • Bauxite
    • 3 years ago

    What is this thing called a “main pc” ?

    Between work and home I could be on anything between sandy and skylake, and from 2 to 22 cores. That only counting fingers on local keyboard PCs, if we include ssh tunnels god only knows what I might be on any given day.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      It’s the physical PC you use the most. 🙂

        • Bauxite
        • 3 years ago

        What day of the week are we talking? If overall I have 5 systems that practically get equal time.

          • meerkt
          • 3 years ago

          Not a day. Average of last 365 days. If the usage is equal to the minute, switch to seconds resolution, then milliseconds if need be. If that’s not enough, you mustn’t vote. Margin of error and all that.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          So pick your favorite

    • NeelyCam
    • 3 years ago

    Ok, so my desktop still runs on SandyBridge, but the chromebook I use more often is on Haswell. I’m having trouble deciding which one to pick. The sandy desktop is still the workhorse when I need one..

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      Split the difference and say Ivy Bridge?

    • SnowboardingTobi
    • 3 years ago

    Skylake xeon e3-1275 v5

    just put it together ~3 weeks ago. retired my 9 year old Core 2 Duo computer.

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      I went with skylake 6700k to retire my 9 year old phenom 2 965be. solid as a goddamm rock, overclocked all these years to 4ghz on a $15 zalman HSF! i gotta say, amd extended the hell out of that cpu. i went through 2 motherboards, a 790fx, and then an 870A mobo with two usb 3.0 headers and sata 3. that was 3-4 years ago. all that’s really changed is usb 3.1, pci 3.0, and m.2/u.2, which isnt much reason for an upgrade, but i figured it’s been a very VERY long time.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Hmm… According to CPU World the 965BE came out in Nov. 2009. That means the oldest 965 in use is 7 years old, max.

    • highlandr
    • 3 years ago

    I split the poll: Skylake at home, Co2Q 6600 at work. 2Mbps internet at home, 500Mbps at work.

    I wish I could balance both of those out somehow.

      • specialworks
      • 3 years ago

      Move? 😉

    • failquail
    • 3 years ago

    Still running my ageing FX-8120 (@4.2ghz)

    Runs everything i can throw at it game-wise, so i’m sticking with it until zen comes out and then i shall see if an upgrade may be in order. 🙂

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 3 years ago

    i5-3750k (Ivy Bridge) still going strong. I normally just run it stock, but toss on an overclock when running certain games. I still only run a GTX 760, and the most graphically intense games I run are GTA V and XCOM 2, so I don’t think I’ll be making any changes anytime soon.

    • mFvwv0zduc
    • 3 years ago

    “AMD Cheese”? What a fuck, techreport?

      • Redocbew
      • 3 years ago

      I thought that was obvious. If AMD really wants to turn things around, then they need to start making cheese. Or even better, start making cheese and potatoes.

        • stdRaichu
        • 3 years ago

        Then they’ll finally reach their poutinetial?

          • just brew it!
          • 3 years ago

          *groan*

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        And bacon.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Traditionally, the last option in TR polls has been cheese.

    • fellix
    • 3 years ago

    Still rolling Westmere — Xeon X5650 on an X58 mobo. Cheap and potent 6c/12t server CPU, but hard to get compatible mobo for it.

    • Misel
    • 3 years ago

    Hmmm…. Cheeeeeeese 😉

    • stdRaichu
    • 3 years ago

    Haswell, I guess…? I use a [url=http://ark.intel.com/products/82765/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v3-15M-Cache-3_50-GHz<]Xeon E5-1650v3[/url<]. A relatively minor upgrade in single-threaded perf from my venerable 2600K (bought on launch day along with the needed-to-be-replaced-a-year-later motherboard) which I still use for my windows gaming rig.

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    When I bought the i7-920, it was not the fastest processor, but the best ones were not much better, and the price was not worth it.

    Upgrading to today best Intel processors cost the price of an entire system, for just the same performance that I left on the table when I bought the 920.

    I would not pay an entire system for roughly the same performance.

    The only exception is the 6950, with 10 cores and 25 mb of cache, it really has some performance worth of upgrading, but to the price of an entire system, you need to add 1700$ only for the processor.
    I have the money (since I didn’t upgraded for soo long, I have a huge stash), but since CPUs are improving so slooowly, buying a processor turns into a long term investment, and I risk spending the money, just to find that one or 2 years after my purchase AMD or Intel release an actually good processor for midrange prices.

    Now, if I were sure that no improvement will come on 2 to 5 years in the future, or I knew that a future processor upgrade will cost only the CPU and not an entire system, then I would spend the money on the i7 6950, because for a long term investment, the price does not matter that much, and I have the stash.

    • Prestige Worldwide
    • 3 years ago

    SANDY BRIDGE 4 LYFE

    • Ochadd
    • 3 years ago

    2600k still going strong @ 4.6 in the winter and 4.4 in the summer. Ordered on launch day at midnight and it is without question the best computer related purchase I’ve ever made. It’s seen upgrades of three different video cards, a HD and four SSDs, and three different operating systems.

    • firewired
    • 3 years ago

    Haswell Core i7-4790T (45W) in an ASRock Z97E-ITX/ac, with a GTX 1070 founder’s edition, housed in a Fractal Design Core 500 case.

    • Helmore
    • 3 years ago

    Lynnfield is Nehalem as far as I’m aware. Now I want to click on both, but that doesn’t work. And yes, I really am still running a Nehalem based rig.

      • DancinJack
      • 3 years ago

      Sort of…

      i7 920/950/980x = Nehalem
      i7 860/870/875, i5 750 = Lynnfield

      edit: I guess the biggest issue is them being a different socket.

      • Sabresiberian
      • 3 years ago

      I would be too (Core i7 920 clocked to 4 GHz) if my power supply hadn’t failed and taken my mainboard and CPU with it.

      • srg86
      • 3 years ago

      Lynnfield equivalent to Broadwell Desktop.
      Bloomfield equivelent to Broadwell EP

      They both have Nehalem cores (like the above both have Broadwell Cores).

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      They are both the same CPU architecutre family. The difference comes from other core logic.

      Lynnfield = DDR3 dual-channel memory controller, PCIe 2.0 controller (drove 16 lanes), 1 QPI link for DMI on non-X58 series chipset platforms.

      Bloomfield = DDR3 triple-channel memory controller and 1 QPI for X58 chipset (Northbridge had PCIe 2.0 controller that drove 40 lanes)

    • John p
    • 3 years ago

    intel 4770k with 1070gtx 20gb of ram.
    i dont see why to upgrade sence a 6700k is only 10% faster.
    once i can upgrade a cpu for 300-400usd and it is 50% faster i might look into this

    • K-L-Waster
    • 3 years ago

    i5 4670k in ATX (OC’d to 4.4 GHz).

    Every now and then I get the urge to build a MITX system, which naturally would be Skylake or Kaby Lake. So far though if I lie down for a while it goes away.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 3 years ago

      My current i7-6700K gaming system lives in a Silverstone [url=http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=533&area=en<]Fortress FTZ01S[/url<]. For the next one that I build, I intend to go back to Micro-ATX instead of Mini-ITX.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 3 years ago

        In my case it’s mostly because I have never built a super tiny system and I’d like to try it (like a Raven or DAN-Case style system). The ability to hide the entire system unit behind my monitors instead of consuming space under the desk sounds like fun.

        Having said that, most of what I’ve been reading about those ultra small cases is once you put a high-performance CPU and GPU in them and get the cooling handled you frequently end up with a somewhat noisy system. So that would kill alot of the attraction for me.

        Edit to add: it’s not lost on me that the attraction of building a new system has nothing whatsoever to do with the performance of the system. I don’t really think it would be much different than the Haswell box tbh.

    • nico1982
    • 3 years ago

    Whatever is inside a 2013 MBP. Haswell, I think? :/

      • davidbowser
      • 3 years ago

      [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type[/url<] MacOS generally only identifies the speed and generic model (e.g. 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7) which is a little annoying. My main Mac is Ivy Bridge and my main Windows box is Ivy Bridge.

        • nico1982
        • 3 years ago

        Thanks, but I’m well aware that is a 2,4 GHz Haswell. It was mean to be more of a joke right on Apple only listing vague details on what is inside their boxes 🙂

          • tipoo
          • 3 years ago

          That was bad enough, but Microsoft seems set to out do them there. You can find out other places, but their Surface website just says “Geforce GTX with 2GB”. How ironic that Apple at least lists full GPU part numbers and sometimes even shader core counts etc.

          On the CPU side it’s the reverse, I usually check wikipedia for a precise Apple CPU number since they just say base and boost clock.

      • Mad_Dane
      • 3 years ago

      [url<]http://www.macworld.co.uk/how-to/mac/how-check-specs-of-your-mac-specifications-3594298/[/url<]

    • derTorbs
    • 3 years ago

    My venerable i7-930 is still trucking along.

    • sweatshopking
    • 3 years ago

    We putting devils canyon as haswell?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      It’s a haswell core and a different package.

    • joselillo_25
    • 3 years ago

    The incombustible Q6600

      • MrDweezil
      • 3 years ago

      Q9450 in my living room PC. Feels like its just about time to retire that guy.

        • joselillo_25
        • 3 years ago

        with honours please

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      Samsung would like to study that Q6600.

        • Redocbew
        • 3 years ago

        They’d say it needs to be thinner.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Oh yeah???

      -cranky PSU

      • Amiga500+
      • 3 years ago

      Brilliant CPU.

      Still have one. Is the reserve machine.

      Main is an old 1100T. It will be getting retired in the new year – waiting to see what Zen does before deciding.

      Anyone else finding themselves paying more attention to the platform relative to the CPU as they get older?

      I’m happy with Zen if it matches a Sandy Bridge at IPC. But I’ll be very unhappy if the mobo range doesn’t offer an option with >4 USB3.1 ports, >10 SATA ports, a couple of M2 slots and has 8x DDR4 slots.

        • DPete27
        • 3 years ago

        [quote<]But I'll be very unhappy if the mobo ...has [less than] 8x DDR4 slots[/quote<] Prepare to be disappointed then.

    • boskone
    • 3 years ago

    I’m using a Skylake, but that’s because my PSU blew and took out my Sandy Bridge. I was perfectly satisfied with the performance; I didn’t notice any improvement going to Skylake.

    Aside from that, I’d added a couple sticks of RAM (8->16GB), and replaced the video card (HD6950->970) last year.

    I might get 1070, mostly because this Asus 970 Turbo is annoyingly noisy after moving it from a Define R2 to a Node 304. I haven’t decided yet.

      • Kingcarcas
      • 3 years ago

      Which reminds me my Corsair is 10yo

    • bthylafh
    • 3 years ago

    Still on an i5-2500K. Honestly I feel more constrained by my RAM (8GB) and video (2GB Radeon 7850) than by the CPU.

      • TwistedKestrel
      • 3 years ago

      Just built an i5-6500 for my brother and was surprised to see that my oc’ed 2500K was still faster

    • leor
    • 3 years ago

    My main rig is Skylake, but I still have an i920 OCed to 3.6 with 12gb of RAM in service. I’m wondering when something will come out that will make that worth upgrading.

    • smilingcrow
    • 3 years ago

    Why no Kaby Lake?
    Some people use mobile devices as their primary PC as I do with my Skylake 3-in-1 (Tablet/laptop/Desktop-docked).

    • just brew it!
    • 3 years ago

    Still on an FX-8350 for the main desktop. Also have a secondary system with an FX-8320, and a file server with an Athlon X2 7750 (Kuma core).

    If Zen doesn’t suck I’ll probably bite (eventually… not planning on being an early adopter), but TBH even the FX-8350 is overkill for most of the stuff I typically use my PC for these days.

    • Shinare
    • 3 years ago

    Just upgraded from my Conroe based Core 2 Duo to a Skylake system this year and honestly it didn’t seem like a huge upgrade. Even went from SATA2 connected SSD to an M.2 PCIex4 SSD. That also didn’t seem as astonishing as I had hoped.

    I guess for the light computing and gaming I do it wasn’t that necessary. *shrug* This should last me another 8-10 years. hehe

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      Did the same thing this year — Core 2 Duo to Skylake i3 — and for me the difference was night and day, even for “light” computing tasks like loading web pages, playing games like Hearthstone and Minecraft, and rebooting the system.

      ‘Twas like a breath of fresh air.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 3 years ago

    I’m still rocking almost one of each desktop processor…
    [i<]Skylake[/i<] i7-6700K + GTX980Ti [i<]Haswell[/i<] i7-4770K + R9-290 [i<]Ivy Bridge[/i<] i5-3570K + HD7870 [i<]Sandy Bridge[/i<] i7-2600K + HD7950 [i<]Llano A8-3850[/i<] + HD6970 [i<]Yorkfield[/i<] Q9300 + HD7770 [i<]Deneb[/i<] X4 955BE + HD5850 [i<]Heka[/i<] X3 720BE + GTX460

      • Shinare
      • 3 years ago

      No Conroe love? ::sad panda::

        • Krogoth
        • 3 years ago

        He probably gave them away or had Athlon 64 X2 at the time. There wasn’t that compelling of a reason to upgrade to Conroe if you had an Athlon 64 X2 rig.

      • flip-mode
      • 3 years ago

      Why?

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 3 years ago

        Why not?

        Each time that I upgrade my main gaming PC, I bump down the older systems to other uses or to family members. I get an upgrade and someone else gets an upgrade, too.

        Core2Quad Yorkfield was a doubled Wolfdale, which was a die-shrunk Conroe. Prior to that, I had Athlon64 X2 / Opteron socket-939 systems.

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    Still rocking my overclocked i5-2500K. If Intel had made an overclockable Skylake with eDRAM I think the jump in gaming performance would have been big enough for me to have made the jump. But they didn’t. Maybe if Kaby Lake ends up clocking very well I’ll make a new system around that, or if Coffee Lake gets single thread performance that’s just as good but with 6 cores/12 threads then that’ll be a very obvious and belated upgrade. Otherwise, with clock speeds hitting a brick wall and IPC not improving, I’d probably only be buggered to upgrade because it’s just bad form to try and play AAA multiplayer games with a 5+ year old CPU

    edit: almost 6 years old now, wow

    • I.S.T.
    • 3 years ago

    Haswell and Skylake are popular, I see…

    *Voted for Haswell*

    • jokinin
    • 3 years ago

    Still using my 4 and a half year old i5 3550 and can’t be happier with it. Only upgrades it has recieved in this long time are a 250GB SSD and a GTX1060 6GB as a replacement of the original HD7870 2GB.
    No need for an upgrade for now, maybe i will think about it in 2018/19

    • SsP45
    • 3 years ago

    A Haswell-based i5-4690K.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]A Haswell-based i5-4690K.[/quote<] We demand a whole entry for Devil's Canyon! Just kidding, I'm on the 4670K. Jealous.

        • srg86
        • 3 years ago

        I’m happy for my i7-4790K to be in the Haswell entry (and yes I use the Integrated Graphics too!). It would be cool though.

    • PBCrunch
    • 3 years ago

    What option do I choose for my G5 Mac Pro? What about my ARM Chromebook?

      • Redocbew
      • 3 years ago

      I really hope a Chromebook is not your primary PC.

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 3 years ago

        Why not? Tablets, Linux computers (HTPC), and smart phones are far more used by people as primary devices in my home. I barely use my desktop any more. Take a look at PC sales and forecasts and you’ll find that it’s becoming increasingly normal.

        That G5, though, that’s going to require some explaining as a “primary” system.

        EDIT: So I apparently need to clarify that I know a Chromebook is not a “tablet.” It’s more or less just a browser. We are all nerds here, but we are the exception. However, a browser is all MOST people need. Vote down all you want. The sales figures don’t lie. Gaming is on the rise but the PC market is shrinking. People don’t buy PC’s because they don’t need them like they used to. They can get by with a once in 10 year upgrade (as some have already posted as a response). They are using chromebooks and tablets as their primary “PC.”

          • Redocbew
          • 3 years ago

          A Chromebook is not a tablet or a smart phone. It’s a thing which looks like a laptop but really isn’t. The answer to “why not” is that it’s a Chromebook.

      • LeoScott
      • 3 years ago

      Round file.

      • Takeshi7
      • 3 years ago

      There’s no such thing as a G5 Mac Pro. It’s called the Power Mac G5. And there is no way you could even use one as your primary computer these days.

        • RAGEPRO
        • 3 years ago

        I dunno! There are some folks who are still porting software to MacOS 9, so I’m sure the G5s are getting some updated software too.

          • Takeshi7
          • 3 years ago

          Let me know of any modern software for my G5 Quad if you do. The only thing it’s still useful for is it has a relatively recent VLC media player, but even then it is wasteful because it uses so much power.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        It’s probably fast enough to get by but there are no modern PPC browsers these days. Using a G5 Mac as a primary machine is a safety hazard.

          • the
          • 3 years ago

          [url=http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/<]TenFourFox[/url<] still gets updated. The real security threat is from older versions of OS X which have a couple of nasty security bugs that will never be patched.

            • tipoo
            • 3 years ago

            Best bet is a PPC Linux distro, which get far better support than the last OSX PPC got (10.5)

            • loophole
            • 3 years ago

            Seconded. Unless there’s some application that’s keeping the OP tied to OS X, I would run Linux on there.

            That said, distros are starting to drop support for big endian ppc64 in favor of little endian so we may not see the same level of support going forward for these 970-based machines.

      • Jigar
      • 3 years ago

      Potato ? No option, sorry.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Using a Mac as your main rig means you can’t join the poll. x86 PC ownership is required, and it has to be your main rig. If your Chrome book uses an ARM CPU you still cannot join. We’re polling about the x86 machine that makes the most impact to your earthly life. No other ISA matters, no exceptions. You don’t like x86?? Get outta here!!!

      😀 😀 😀

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    Pshaww… we all know they’re the same silicon with different labels to keep the public guessing!

    (Of course I voted AMD!)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This