Do you agree with this /g/?

>>58015568
I agree with everything but the 90%. Something like 50% would be more accurate for me.

>>58015568
you will still look like a retard no matter what you buy

File: 84287171.jpg (80KB, 492x559px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 492x559px

ZEN WILL BE A 90% IMPROVEMENT UPON THE PREVIOUS GENERATION WITH THE SAME COST!

90% is too high.

make it something like 30% and we have a deal.

>>58015568
>tfw went from a core2duo to a 6700k

>>58015568
>Only buy expensive things
Wow nice MARKETING you literal shill.
Give me more ADVERTISING please.

I usually do a CPU upgrade around 50% - 70% improvement, with my last build I went from a 955 BE to a 4790k.

>>58015645
You'd pay 100% of the price for 30% of improvement? That's crazy man.

>>58015568
what about newer chips that are optimized for specific applications such as neural nets?

>>58015568
Yes

>>58015668
>>Only buy expensive things
Work on your reading comprehension, friend

>>58015672

I paid double the price for an upgrade from AMD Phenom x4 945 to 3570K, meanwhile the processor was 70% more powerful and since 2013 I keep that CPU.

I can pay the price of my current cpu for 30% improvement.

>>58015702
>neural nets
You mean autism-support machines?
Those are for medical use, they are a different topic.

>>58015672
Why? The price of the old CPU doesn't matter since you've already paid for it. The question is only whether a 30% improvement is worth $300 to you right now.

>>58015568
Found the poorfag

>>58015568
>they "upgraded" from Haswell to Skylake

Good goyim

I'll upgrade for less.

>>58015568
No, it's retarded, because measuring relative performance is a meme anyways, and it treats performance quantitatively but cost qualitatively. Instead the equation should be "is the improved performance worth the cost". Not to mention that the cost of the original CPU is meaningless due to market forces anyway.

>Have intel atom
>I7 is at least a 90% improvement
>but costs more even compared to the new MSRP of the atom
>don't upgrade or you'll look like a retarded faggot

>>58015568
This is dumb.

At least include ALL other factors that come with upgrading a new CPU - new socket, new mobo, DDR4 vs DDR3, etc.

>>58015568
Nah it's pretty retarded

Have a you

>>58016013
That makes it even more of a compelling argument if you think about it.

>>58016012
that's what happens when an actual retard is in charge of making /g/ charts.

>>58015568
fuck you, stupid cunt.

>>58015672

Money increases it's value over time retard. Ever heard of inflation?

>>58017128
that is deflation desu

>>58017128
Ever heard of Black Friday?

>>58015568
This chart is outdated we will only see those type of gains in decades. It all about the features they can cram in it

>>58015568
It's not that simple. Some new features are only avaliable on newer Motherboards and your chipset may not be supported. So youd need to buy a new CPU in that case.

>Newer USB
>M.2 sata
>etc.

Well, I upgraded from a C2 Q6600 to a 4790K, how much improvement was? 200% 300%?

>>58017128
inflation decreases the value of your money, you literal retard

I have an AMD Phenom II X2 1045T which I know can be overclocked to 4.0GHz but right now I keep it at 3.0GHz. I have no reason to upgrade.

>>58015672
Generally you you'd be moving to a much newer platform that can support newer devices.

I paid $260 for my Q6600 and $290 for my 5820k.

I spent slightly more, but went from 4 core/4 thread, to 6 core/12 thread, and 3.2GHz to 4.3GHz

Not to mention the generational IPC improvements from the C2Q days to Haswell-E.

I'd say I made a good upgrade.

>>58015568
>90%
Guess only retards have bought cpus for the last decade.

File: 1473506898180.png (11KB, 470x454px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 470x454px

>>58017128

>>58017128
Why is it that vulgar posters often are so wrong and and proudly boasting their ignorance?

>>58018836
Dunning–Kruger effect

>>58015568
I went from i5-6400 with a gtx 970 to a i7-6700k with a 1080 aero. In under 1 year.

I'd say the problem is in quantifying improvement.
Benchmarks aren't exactly unbiased or linear.
Personally I only buy entire new computers every 5 years or so, because standards.

File: hexadecimal.png (10KB, 700x118px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 700x118px

>>58018856

>>58015568
This guide is retarded.

>>58015568
Not really.

CPU BUYING GUIDE:
>Assuming you can afford a new CPU, how many years has it been since you purchased one?

1
>Don't buy one.

3
>Buy one if it supports new features you will use regularly.

5
>Buy one.

File: wordstar.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg (138KB, 590x332px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 590x332px

>>58018993
What if the 5 year old CPU is sufficient for my work?
George RR Martin writes his books with an MS-DOS word processor in 80x25 text mode.

>>58018993
But my Q6600 from 9+ years ago is still going strong

>>58019017
Then don't upgrade. If you already know that what you have is sufficient then you don't need a CPU buying guide because you're not buying a CPU.

>>58015702
GPU is possibly a better investment for NN and other heavy mathematics

>>58019052
>possibly
I think you mean "absolutely is".

>>58017369
When you're this retarded

>>58018895
*triggered*

>>58017306
This is the issue I am running into.

I have a 1st gen i7.. Running on water @4.0ghz. Sure, it runs fast AND uses a shit ton of power. But I can't get any of the newer features.

File: Screenshot at 23-41-17.png (97KB, 825x528px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 825x528px

>>58015568

I might be within the 90% improvement range.
But to gain 90% there will be necessary to spend al lot more than the old P 805D did sell for. Even adjusted for inflation.

Buying a new CPU is just a waste of money unless you REALLY need it. I have postpone investing in a new CPU many times by rather upgrading the GPU. And then always a newer budget one. The current setup is 10 years old and still going strong.

>>58019080
only sith deals in absolutes

>>58018895
>>58018856
>>58017369
I reallllly hope you guys realize that he was pointing out that money decreases in value over time thus it is lower than 100% of the price for a 30% increase.

>>58019261

From the old P805D to the 4790k there is a 2000% increase in performance. But the price is at least 2 to 3 times the cost of the 805. Again, no investment will be made unless I really, really need the i7.

File: snapshot_13.50_[2016.07.29_03.42.59].png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>58015568
this will be reposted in many months
also saged

>>58018993

Not buying. My Pentium 805 D + a GeForce GTS 250 runs perfectly fine. The combo has survived several power supplies and monitors. Handles 1080 fine. However, the CPU are not the best handling modern website loading, and their 30+ scrips they typically wants to load.

>>58015568
Guess I'll stay on an core2duo then.

>>58015568
I have an i5 2400, thinking of getting i5 7600k or equivalent priced(or a bit higher) amd(probably more cores).
Now... is that applicable?

>>58015568
>CPU Buying Guide
>Is it Intel?
>Buy
>Is it AMD?
>Don't Buy
easy

>90%
a 30% improvement is more than enough reason to upgrade a processor if you actually feel the need to.

Does it have at least 10 times the bogomips (total):
buy
else
don't buy

>>58015568
i think this guide is bullshit cause i upgraded from an i5 2500k to a i75820k it only cost $50 more than the i5 and i got almost twice the performance. so i guess im retarded based on this picture then hahaha.

>>58019352
That's funny because he said the exact opposite of that, you fucking white knight.

File: 1475341589148.jpg (36KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 604x604px

>>58020307

File: 1267385039067.png (133KB, 354x363px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 354x363px

>>58015655

did it feel good senpai?

I upgraded from phenom II x4 955 to i5 6600k this year. Would recommend.

My last upgrade catapulted me from an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ to an Intel i5 2500K. I don't even know how many percent of computer power gain that translates into. That AMD was single core and still used AGP.

>>58020473
pretty good
no more 24 hours for stuff to compile

File: 00013kumiko.jpg (222KB, 1431x1014px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1431x1014px

I'd be fine with a Core 2 Quad. Most people over-estimate how much they need out of their CPU, especially on /g/ where you have tons of retards buying an i7 for a gaming rig, but then getting a GTX1070 or something instead of a GTX1080.

>>58015568
Depends. If 20% improvement will yield me faster compile or render times, thus save me time or make more money. Sure. 10% is plausible even.

For entertainment and/or internet dickery then at least 50% is my minimum. I recently upgraded an aging q6600 to 5820k so...

>>58019582
>>58019022
see:
>>58019032

>>58015831
This basically, you already gave use to your current cpu and for "the same price" (money doesn't cost the same at two different times). Besides, nothing lasts forever either, if it's, for example, 10 years old I would consider changing it even if I don't reach the percentage I want.

>>58015568

This picture explains so well why every speccy thread on /g/ shows fucking garbage computers and why no one here uses their PC for anything but loonix ricing.

>>58015568
Do I need to adjust for inflation tho?

>>58017128
guys what if this anon just made a typo and is not actually a fucking faggot retard?

>>58020640

why did you wait so long?

>>58015568
Is this from reddit or something?

The fuck does "performance" mean? Per chip clock speed? Number of cores? It's power consumption? Support to other hardware like memory typing or PCI lanes? Is it just a meaningless buzzword?

How can we even begin to justify what 90% of that "performance" even is unless we know what kind?

What about the features that are provided by improvements in computer technology that don't result in a directly quantifiable improvement, such as support for parallelization and how it's implemented, or instruction set improvement and support?

How the fuck can we even determine if it's worth any money to us at all to buy unless we even decide what we need from the CPU and how the newer tech compares?

This thing is stupid. I am hurt by looking at it. My autism is feverishly excited.

File: braindamage.jpg (50KB, 600x604px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x604px

>>58022886
>The fuck does "performance" mean?
Means how fast does it do the thing you want it to do. Seriously, how are any of those things you mentioned even plausible as definitions of "performance"?

>>58022886
IPC and benchmarks

It's pretty easy:

x = Depreciated price of current chip (depends on technology, smaller tech has lower life time) say 10% p.a
y = Value of increased performance to your application. If your CPU is not the bottleneck this is zero.
z= Price of new CPU

If y > x + z then buy it.

>>58022969
Why does the price of the old chip factor into it at all? If I estimate the value of the increased performance as $500 and the chip costs $400, seems like I should buy the thing, even if the old one is still $300 after depreciation.

>>58022886

this, real techies would use something like falcon's logical increments guide.

>>58015655
I went from a Pentium D to a i5 3470 four years ago. The jump in power was similarly incredible.

>>58019261
lmao you retards really are poor arent you,
i paid like $300 for my 4790k and its like 2 years old baka

do you guys ever upgrade your GPU's or are you still using your bottom of the line GTX 760

>>58020640
Try Athlon 64 (original 2001, nothing fancy) to i5 6600k

<spoiler> I used laptops between those two desktops </spoiler>

>>58023035
It should be y > z - x and x should be whatever price you can sell it for

(z - x) should equal k, and we should also have variables for the initial price paid for the old cpu. We'll use b for that value. Thus if y (as a percentage of performance relative to old processor) is equal to or greater than k / b *100, or the price of the new minus the amount made from selling the old, relative to the initial price of the old, then its worth buying.

Using the graph posted earlier, a 3770 vs the 4790 shows the 4th gen is about 20% faster. Assuming the person sells the old one for 150 and bought both at a price of 300, it would not be worth the upgrade (counting the price of the original, thats 450 spent on cpus, so the new one would be 50% more spent for a 20% increase in performance).

This is of course assuming we want to calculate this in a very jewish way like the chart in the OP where spending less somehow should get you more.

>>58017306
>>58019185
>Newer USB
Get a PCIe card
>M.2 sata
Get a PCIe card

You gaymurr faggots know expansion slots are there for things other than graphics cards, right?

>>58025085
They don't.