-
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.
Why so little performance improvements year after year?
- Thread starter Radiation
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
My apologies I though that they were x32, with some RAM being reserved for system OS? Read this a while back though, that God they're going to be x64 bit.
The CPU's will be 64bit yes, but I thought I would point out that just because home versions of 32bit Windows can only address 4GB (or 3.5GB after PCI has got involved) doesn't mean all 32bit O/S's are limited to 4GB. The were 32bit versions of Server 2k8, 2k3 and 2000 that could access well over 4GB using physical address extension, and "back in the day" we used bank switching to increase addressable memory.
Raw performance isn't all that useful a metric. Especially not per-thread raw performance. All the applications which matter care more about performance / watt, or performance / £.
This isn't only laptops/mobile phones with battery life woes, it's businesses who don't like their electricity bills and numerical work where wattage is seriously important. The early Nehalem chips were 130W, Sandy is 95W, Ivy 77W. That was a pretty good trend, 130W down to 77W while increasing (most) performance is fantastic. (I believe Haswell is quicker but burns more - bit out of date here).
Per thread performance isn't increasing because it is no longer the most important metric. Changing from FSB to QPI was seriously important for improving multi-threaded performance as a horrendous bottleneck disappeared. Operating systems are threaded, programs where performance matters are threaded, programs where performance seriously matters are distributed.
This isn't only laptops/mobile phones with battery life woes, it's businesses who don't like their electricity bills and numerical work where wattage is seriously important. The early Nehalem chips were 130W, Sandy is 95W, Ivy 77W. That was a pretty good trend, 130W down to 77W while increasing (most) performance is fantastic. (I believe Haswell is quicker but burns more - bit out of date here).
Per thread performance isn't increasing because it is no longer the most important metric. Changing from FSB to QPI was seriously important for improving multi-threaded performance as a horrendous bottleneck disappeared. Operating systems are threaded, programs where performance matters are threaded, programs where performance seriously matters are distributed.
So what's going to happen then, will computers in thirty years time only be a few times as fast?
What good is that, i don't think we'll see anything very interesting coming from them then if things progress at such a slow rate, it will be very disappointing to see games only looking a bit better than today.
What good is that, i don't think we'll see anything very interesting coming from them then if things progress at such a slow rate, it will be very disappointing to see games only looking a bit better than today.
i dont think consoles had as big impact as lack of competition for raw cpu power from amd, this isnt an amd bash, i think they played it very well for what they had going for them
im sure tho if amd wasnt going apu/gfx so much and had a faster cpu than intel, intel would have stepped there game up a lot more over the last few years
ppl need faster cpu's for other things, much more so than gaming, so yeh i really dont blame consoles^^
im sure tho if amd wasnt going apu/gfx so much and had a faster cpu than intel, intel would have stepped there game up a lot more over the last few years
ppl need faster cpu's for other things, much more so than gaming, so yeh i really dont blame consoles^^
Not really. Parallelisable jobs like rendering and scientific computing are all done on clusters of hundreds/thousands of high-core-count, low-clocked CPUs; and most workstation jobs (CAD, 3D modelling) AFAIK tend to offload most of the work to the GPU(s).
The only industry I can think of that has stuck with pure (single-threaded) performance is niche areas of finance where every microsecond counts to get a trade done.
In day to day use, the only thing I can think of which people need a fast single CPU for is games.
You probably mean 32 bit, or perhaps x86. There is no x32 architecture.
Last edited:
It funny how many claims its the end for PC gaming when there actually havent been more PC gamers than there is now. Its just overshadowed by the big numbers of console gamers so it looks pale in comparison. Consoles are easy for everyone and thats fine. Plug in and play, pc is almost as easy but there is some finesse to it to really make a PC shine and when it does what an awwsome thing indeed. Some will like the set in stone consoles others like my self prefers the modular setup called a PC. I think both will continue to exist in one way or another as long as the humans have control over earth 
.
.They shouldn't really let console life go beyond five years as i think it's not helped with progress, there's no doubt things have seriously slowed down, i suspected this was the case years ago and i think it should be quite obvious by now, i mean how can anyone think it's ok for intel to release a cpu at the same price point and core count as something we've had three or so years ago which is only up to 20% faster, this is supposed to be a proper new generation, so why don't i see many complaining about this? 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
They shouldn't really let console life go beyond five years as i think it's not helped with progress, there's no doubt things have seriously slowed down, i suspected this was the case years ago and i think it should be quite obvious by now, i mean how can anyone think it's ok for intel to release a cpu at the same price point and core count as something we've had three or so years ago which is only up to 20% faster, this is supposed to be a proper new generation, so why don't i see many complaining about this?
There is entirely nothing wrong with it, they are just killing their customer base.
For instance if 3 years ago you NEEDED an upgrade and could get a 2500k, surely you would have happily, at that time, taken something that was 20% faster for the same price.
Thats fine, but there are only so many people who want a computer, if performance doubles every 3 years, people will want double the performance and they'll do what our consumerism based society does and basically throw out a perfectly fine computer, for a better one. When it comes to 20% performance for the same cost 3 years later. People aren't upgrading, people with Q6600's are upgrading and getting a 4500k(i have no idea what the equivalent is called, you get the idea) and getting more bang for buck than if they upgraded 3 years ago, but there is no push to upgrade if you already have a good computer.
For group 1, upgraders on very old chips, the 4500k is a better chip than the 2500k, for group 2, upgraders on relatively new chips, the 4500k is barely faster and terrible value. Its all perspective, but for Intel what was millions of people and an industry that would routinely rebuy 10k computers for double the performance, they have hurt the industry badly. There is a reason PC sales are down so massively and its not just tablets or smartphones, its that companies and individuals see no benefit from upgrading a recent computer.
The other effect is, without double the cpu power available, and because people aren't buying them, there is little reason to make software that would use it. You don't design a game which will have 10k people with the power required to run it, you make a game where 10million people have the power to run it. Hardware first, software follows, been the say since day one. You get early adopters pushing sales, which pushers software, which pushers more casual upgraders to need more power to run that software that is writen for those early adopters.
Intel seemingly forgot all this and hurt their bottom line massively in not fighting.
Its got nothing to do with AMD, as I've pointed out Intel's biggest threat or competition, is themselves, and outdoing their own chips so much that people who already have an Intel chip, buy a newer better Intel chip. AMD has NEVER mattered in terms of Intel bringing out faster chips, on price, or performance. If Intel made a new chip twice as fast for twice the price and no competition again very few would buy it. Customers determine what Intel charge because Intel decides how many sales it needs and adjusts prices to where they need to be.
Good article from last month: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-core-i7-4770k-takes-over-the-pole-position/4
As AVX (and AVX2) are more widely included in apps we should see a further 20%-50% performance increase. As I wrote earlier in this thread, this is where the CPU manufacturers are going - wider bandwidth, more intelligent execution, more and wider instruction sets and vectorisation; keeping clock speed the same; and decreasing power consumption.
As AVX (and AVX2) are more widely included in apps we should see a further 20%-50% performance increase. As I wrote earlier in this thread, this is where the CPU manufacturers are going - wider bandwidth, more intelligent execution, more and wider instruction sets and vectorisation; keeping clock speed the same; and decreasing power consumption.
Last edited:
Cpus for most last a long while compared to gpus
More focus on mobile computing
Lack of competition
Consoles becoming more popular and more like Pcs
Soon a lot of people will have a tablet and an all in one console, I keep thinking about getting rid of my desktop and just using htpc and laptop
Not many average pc gamers need masses of cpu grunt
On side of gfx, until 4k comes along properly I expect gpus to be same
I don't need more than a 7850 for my tv
I don't need more than an ok i5 cpu
More focus on mobile computing
Lack of competition
Consoles becoming more popular and more like Pcs
Soon a lot of people will have a tablet and an all in one console, I keep thinking about getting rid of my desktop and just using htpc and laptop
Not many average pc gamers need masses of cpu grunt
On side of gfx, until 4k comes along properly I expect gpus to be same
I don't need more than a 7850 for my tv
I don't need more than an ok i5 cpu
They are near the limit of the Silicon working frequency, they will need to use new materials that are really expensive at the moment.
Making multi-cores easier and cheaper than increasing the frequency in one core.
Most of new softwares can benefit from multi-cores.
Making multi-cores easier and cheaper than increasing the frequency in one core.
Most of new softwares can benefit from multi-cores.
It funny how many claims its the end for PC gaming when there actually havent been more PC gamers than there is now. Its just overshadowed by the big numbers of console gamers so it looks pale in comparison. Consoles are easy for everyone and thats fine. Plug in and play, pc is almost as easy but there is some finesse to it to really make a PC shine and when it does what an awwsome thing indeed. Some will like the set in stone consoles others like my self prefers the modular setup called a PC. I think both will continue to exist in one way or another as long as the humans have control over earth
I also wonder how much of those console gamers in the stats are dire hard console gamers. I have a console but I play on my PC a lot too, I wonder if I was in that statistic.
You could maybe at a push spend less but don't expect all pc games to run in all their glory, you might probably be limited to solitaire and the likes, haha.
Basic answer is lack of R &D and investment and development due to the slow growth of PCs at the expense of hand held devices. The demise of AMD has made Intel dominant with little effort.
Pity that the PC has been left behind but is still bread and butter.
I thought I'd upgrade by now if they continued with the old cycle of doubling speed every few yrs. My upgrade cycle has slowed too due to that reason. The pc is deemed to be mature and only replacement cycle as a PC nears the end. It has some truth but some of it is their own making. PCs are retired unlike cars, which die and get scrapped.
No point retiring and buying a current PC when a new one is only marginally faster and the current is perfectly adequate. On the onther hand if they bring out a processor double the speed it would encourage a replacement.
That is my thinking, they are just tweaking about rather than introducing something new.
I for one , waiting for an 8 core at a resonable price, not quite a xeon budget but will pay eg £400 + for a processor....(rather than a 6 core with 2 cores disabled
)
Pity that the PC has been left behind but is still bread and butter.
I thought I'd upgrade by now if they continued with the old cycle of doubling speed every few yrs. My upgrade cycle has slowed too due to that reason. The pc is deemed to be mature and only replacement cycle as a PC nears the end. It has some truth but some of it is their own making. PCs are retired unlike cars, which die and get scrapped.
No point retiring and buying a current PC when a new one is only marginally faster and the current is perfectly adequate. On the onther hand if they bring out a processor double the speed it would encourage a replacement.
That is my thinking, they are just tweaking about rather than introducing something new.
I for one , waiting for an 8 core at a resonable price, not quite a xeon budget but will pay eg £400 + for a processor....(rather than a 6 core with 2 cores disabled
)
Last edited:
Cheers, now my desk is covered in sick and my brain is covered in horrific depression.
I can't get over how freaky that is. It feels like being back in 1989/90 watching Total Recall/Robocop 2 and watching this as a tv ad. Yet it's nearly here.
Parts of New York looks like Back to the Future 2 just without hover boards and flying cars. Yet the UK looks like it's still stuck in the 70s.