CPU advancement has been getting slower and slower

zionosis

Honorable
Oct 22, 2013
39
0
10,540
Well is it just me but I remember back when AMD released the Phenom II's and Intel had Nehalem, Westmere and eventually Sandy bridge. Seemed processors were advancing with much bigger leaps back then.

Even worse is that processors have become far more expensive now. Especially Intel. The future of CPU's sort of looks sad and what everyone said years ago if AMD failed was true. Intel is already doing it. Advancing at a snail pace while charging prices as if they released CPU's twice as powerful when they are more like 10% more powerful.


What are you opinions on this.
 
it's true that cpu advancements have been getting slower, but i think this is normal. the computational power of the cpu-s has been highly overrated. for example i have a old very old E-350 laptop with a dual core 1.6ghz and paired with a ssd it feels just as fast as my desktop for everyday stuff. of course i can't game on it, but this goes to show that unless you need that computational power for something in particular the cpu was never the bottleneck in how the system feels.

i think we no longer get so big leapfrogs because they are no longer needed.

of course, the way they charge for the small improvements is ridiculous.
 
i kind of disagree with this, intel has some 6 core desktop cpu's that are very powerful. i think right now, its not uncommon for someone to own an i5 or fx 8xx cpu, which are priced comparably to what a mid range cpu was 5 or 6 years ago, yet they are considered reasonably high end. hell you can get a 6 core AMD cpu now for a mere $120. 6 or more years ago you would be spending much higher budgets on builds that is no longer necessary to get great performance. cpu advancement is still there, only now it rests in more cores and efficiency rather than outright power, advancement will be more apparent when more programs can utillize more cores in modern cpu's. Also lack of competition means intel has no need to spend so much money on r&d in the desktop sector, which is a shrinking market getting replaced by low power tablets. Now i own a couple tablets in my family, the main pc stays off for most of the day, just use the tablet when i need to look something up on the web. There are probably many people now who have no need for a pc or laptop at all and just have an android tablet, its all many people would need.
 

Deuce65

Honorable
Oct 16, 2013
1,465
0
11,960
It's just you.

Current MSRP for the "extreme desktop" Ivy Bridge: 323, 583, 999. MSRP back in the day for "extreme desktop" Nehalem: 294, 562, 999. Not much difference. I mean you can get 4770K for 250.00 at microcenter. 510 for a 4930. I'm not sure how you figure they are "far more expensive" when if anything, they're cheaper.
Performance wise, in what way are they not advancing quickly? The future is mobile\integrated, not clunky desktop PCs, and they have made huge improvements in that regard. For straight compute everyone uses GPUs these days anyways.
 

zionosis

Honorable
Oct 22, 2013
39
0
10,540



You and all the others on here can deny reality all you want. Facts are that Haswell is a tiny improvement. Ivy wasn't such a huge improvement over Sandy. But sort of decent compared to Haswell.

Facts are also that a bit over a year ago I was choosing a build for a friend and the 2500K has totally become far more pricey now. He was a cheap ass and he even bought a better cpu than it. Now I go back and check the prices and the 2500k costs even more than back then.

Also sorry but more facts are that back in those days around Phenom II games were also advancing their graphics at a much faster rate than now. We had Crysis and many other good graphics games when before them the graphics were far worse. Now days game designers only increase the graphics in small increments. Heck some of these new console games don't even look better than Crysis for gods sake.
There are no companies like the old Crytek that pushed the limit of modern hardware anymore. Just new games being released with old graphics. I can prove this game advancement with many pictures and year dates if the tools on here deny this also.


Also my rig that I built didn't cost me that much and at the time it could play all the newest games at max. Now it seems if I want to build a current rig it will cost 1.5K.

Hard drives were cheaper also and I have receipts to prove this. (I have no idea why people on here deny all this stuff, You don't work for the companies so why defend them with lies).

About the only stuff that has actually become cheaper are flash drives, monitors, SSD's, and I think possibly graphics cards. Seems people have no long term memories on here.

Also before anyone come in here with the monetary inflation excuse, No the inflation has not increased that much at all within the last 5 years. So claiming that when something of equal value now to 5 years ago costs over 20% more now because of inflation is just BS.

I guess you all think Houses haven't become more expensive either. lol. Prob trolls.

My cpu cost me $250 about 3 years ago nearly. Now when looking at upgrading to get anything that is at least 15% faster it's going to cost me well over $300. I also bought my 2tb back in the day for $79 and now they are a minimum of $88. These are in Australian currency before anyone starts posting slightly smaller numbers in American currency.


 

bungz

Honorable
Aug 7, 2013
116
0
10,760
"Even worse is that processors have become far more expensive now"

Really? 8 core AMD CPU's can be bought for peanuts and unlocked i5's aren't that pricey really. PC stuff used to be far far more expensive going back.

That said everything is relative, I remember paying as much for a Athlon Xp 1800+ (one of the lowest models at the time) as I can buy a 8 core FX chip for these days!

 

Traildriver

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2010
587
0
19,160
What software is it out there that needs 6 core at this moment to run? Nothing. Right now it's only good for multitasking, and how much can one fit on a screen at a time. Back in the day a CPU upgrade provided immediate benefits because of the advances in speed with each new PC one bought / made. Nowadays, the speed ceiling of a CPU is reached makers are just adding more cores. Minimal benefit for most games and software. So I agree with the poster re high prices and slowing improvement. It's like buying an expensive sports car. You get to the same places as a 4 door family car. Highways are so poorly designed that you cannot run the sports car full out. It's only benefit is bragging rights.
 

zionosis

Honorable
Oct 22, 2013
39
0
10,540


I don't want more cores. That isn't that useful and that is why a lot of these new cpu's are maybe 15% faster than the last gen, But only on cherry picked benchmarks that utilize 6 or 8 cores. Singe core or even duel core performance isn't really going anywhere fast. Temps are getting hotter and wattage is getting higher. It all seems to me like the CPU's need a huge redesign. There are only so many more cores and transistors and power you can push into a design.

We have reached the point as to where they can't really make cpu's too much more powerful because they would be too hard to cool with the current design.

 

st379

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2013
169
69
18,660
Intel=Apple releasing the same product year after year since 2007.
I am betting that if it was possible to overclock the q6600 that was released in 2007 to 5.0 ghz it was able to give to haswell quite a fight with all the architecture improvement.
the cpu world is dead since 2007 and intel/apple just releasing for the last 3 years the same 200$ quad core with no performence benefit.
i wonder how a q6600 in 5 ghz performe against haswell in 3.0 ghz.