Moore's Law has been dead for years.
We need some new innovation/investion to come to light to further push things forward imo.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
TSMC has postponed the installation of its 16nm production lines to the second half of 2015 instead
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Moore's Law has been dead for years.
We need some new innovation/investion to come to light to further push things forward imo.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
80% is still pretty easily doable with a double transistor count.
Remember that Intel has both reduced the size of the cpu AND dedicated a large portion of the die towards a gpu. How many people spent £250 on a i7 and never once use the igpu. If Intel was still making 250mm^2 chips that were cpu only we'd have 6-8 cores in the same price point. Intel also rather helped to stagnate the market with the way they chose to go about switching to APU's and leaving cpu only to such a high end segment with severely increased prices.
One of the big reasons 'cpu' performance hasn't moved on massively is that cpu architectures stopped being developed 5-6 years ago, apu architectures are what everything is based around working on now. GPU's are still GPU's, their relative make up, shaders, tmu's, rops, memory bus, hasn't really changed. There is no particular reason for the change in performance from one generation to the next to change drastically unless for instance a 550mm^2 core simply isn't feasible on 16nm any more, which would prevent Nvidia making a 550mm^2 follow up to their last core. That should be relatively short term as 450mm wafer production in the next 4-5 years should help make bigger cores possible again, though not too important as we get 2.5d production and just make two smaller cores and stick them together on an interposer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,789
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,789
More likely to be seen?
A Unicorn on your back garden?
16nm or below GPU?
A Unicorn on your back garden?
16nm or below GPU?
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...for-ultra-low-power-high-performance-devices/
"Expected to last a long time" - I would've thought 10nm would quickly become the new baseline once ready and it's supposed to be ready in 2017.
"Expected to last a long time" - I would've thought 10nm would quickly become the new baseline once ready and it's supposed to be ready in 2017.
You know something DM, you come across as a really intelligent chap, but unfortunately your posts are allways laden with hate and animosity towards companies. I see this week it is Intel. They lie and dont know how to make CPU's, really.
Well if they lie than so do all the other chip manufacturing people, because as you said yourself 16nm finfet is really 20nm anyway.
Intel make APU's the way they do because that is what their customers want. The people like us gamers are a tiny part of their market.
Dont beilve me, well you dont have to, but I will just leave you with this.
Didnt Intel, just announce record profits, they obviously know what they are doing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Taking the 25% increase each gen for granted? Don't think we have been for a while now, since we have to pay £150-£200 extra over what we paid in the previous gen (buying new gen card at one tier higher than the card being replaced) for a while now to get that kind of increase, while paying the same money/products in the same price range already really only getting 5% increase per gen
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You know something DM, you come across as a really intelligent chap, but unfortunately your posts are allways laden with hate and animosity towards companies. I see this week it is Intel. They lie and dont know how to make CPU's, really.
Well if they lie than so do all the other chip manufacturing people, because as you said yourself 16nm finfet is really 20nm anyway.
Intel make APU's the way they do because that is what their customers want. The people like us gamers are a tiny part of their market.
Dont beilve me, well you dont have to, but I will just leave you with this.
Didnt Intel, just announce record profits, they obviously know what they are doing.
It's okay, you don't come across as an intelligent chap at all, you constantly have a go at other peoples posts insisting their posts are full of hate. Because, if someone is just posting sensibly and also has a go at the love of your life it would appear sensible also. So instead you, amongst others, insist every post I make is full of "hate" and lies to thus back up your story when someone talks about Nvidia's not very nice tactics or wood screws you can just refer to all the previous hate filled posts.
If I'm wrong point out where I said Intel don't know how to make a CPU anywhere... that is right, I didn't. Point out where I said intel lied, again I didn't.
You consistently do this, I post one thing you post quoting me but you know removing the words and then state as a fact I said certain things about Intel which I didn't, then you use these things you have lied about me saying and claim this campaign of hate.
I will point it out again just in case you can comprehend the difference.
Intel HAVEN'T made a CPU architecture for years, they've made an APU architecture. This means it is optimised to work alongside a gpu with the GPU growing in size compared to the CPU part of the core almost every single generation over the past 5-6 years.
You stated I said they don't know how to make a CPU, I didn't, I said they HADN'T made a straight up CPU architecture for years.... because they categorically have not. Their focus has been on GPU growth, with Broadwell having gone from 20% cpu performance in early info to 4% while some gpu tasks are listed as up to 50% faster.
There is nothing wrong with this either and I didn't claim there was, it's the way the industry is going. The conversation and the post I was directly responding to was exactly about how cpu performance has stalled. This isn't because of processes or inability to grow cpu performance but an active decision to focus on other things. Intel and AMD's priority has been power saving, moving as much on die as possible, adding a gpu and growing GPU power, working on accelerating things via the GPU.
So rather than post your usual utter bile against me, why not just not bother. You read things into my posts that are never there. I posted fact and information on a subject that had little to do with Intel. My post was actually defending Intel and merely explaining why CPU performance growth had almost stopped, not through inability(what you are claiming I said) but through active choice to go a different direction.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Because they make more profit delivering cheaper to make chips and running marketing campaigns trying to convince the public how getting these small improvement is not easy task and big achievements (when it's not), than to actually deliver much faster chip at higher manufactuer costs that would last much longer, thus hurting the sales of future products as it will be longer before customers upgrading again?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,527
And if anyone disagrees with DM the hate gets turned on that individual with claims of never having said the things he actually says "that is all you do"
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No, that is simply you adding to the crap. Show me where I said what he claimed I said. He was actively lying, it can be proven by reading my posts. I didn't show a single ounce of Intel hate anywhere. but because it suits your constant arguments as well you're backing him up rather than reading the posts and seeing that he was completely wrong.
Again I ask you, where did I call Intel liars, where did I say they couldn't make a CPU?
It's literally embarrassing, one Nvidia guy posts that I "hate" something based off several things I never at all came close to saying, when called on it, another Nvidia guy backs it up talking about "hate" again as if that is a valid argument.
It's simple my posts are there, the last edit time is listed(as before bru's post) bru conveniently didn't actually use my words when quoting me but deleted them, then made some claims which you are by what you've said claiming I also said them, when my posts are right there to be read.
This is the biggest issue on this forum, a core group of about 5 users who wade into every thread, post against an individual, bang on about hate, insist they were wrong, simply make up things they said then when called on it the cavalry ride in and have a circlejerk of agreeing with each other.
5 wrong people agreeing with each other doesn't make them right, it makes it embarrassing for all 5 people who between them can't put together a coherent or sensible argument.
Once again, quote where I said they
do you want me to quote it for you to save you the trouble.
Reducing the size of the cpu and putting more of the chip towards a gpu is factually incorrect is it and also is me stating Intel don't know how to make a CPU? I said paraphrased, Intel stopped making CPU architectures, they started making APU's, this is a categorical fact and wasn't a slight, simply an explanation on why CPU performance stopped increasing drastically, nothing more or less. Claiming I said they didn't know how to make a CPU is a complete lie and his insistence that I was showing hate by saying such a thing also becomes laughable because I simply did not say that at all.
Last edited:
It's been so long that I feel that I've grown to love 28nm and will be devastated to see it go, much like an arranged marriage