Are CPUs now "fast enough" for the vast majority of PC users?

[Amiga500]

Current dual core CPUs can browse, they can watch videos, do office based work... run the anti-virus at the same time

... all without a problem.





Will the vast majority (which is not really represented on a forum like this) actually need any more?


Does anyone foresee the sort of applications that will be needed to drive the market to purchase more powerful CPUs in the future? If so, what are they?

 

[jitpublisher]

For the vast majority of users, CPU's have been fast enough for 5 years now.

 

[rodney_ws]

Until a computer game looks and behaves like reality (we're talking visual quality and physical interaction) then of course there's room for improvement... but once we reach that point... ugh... I don't know.

 

[Dacrath]

Hard to say. I browsed the Internet and did office work with windows 95 and a 75 mhz Pentium processor. For the most part it wasn't that much "slower" The dial-up did more to kill it as apposed to the processor. Hell, I connected to the Internet and used Netscape back in the windows 3.1 days (although 3.1 was less than ideal).

Web pages, browsers and office software continues to get more complex, more and more software seems to insist on installing and running persistent crap in the background. I suspect that Windows 7 will be bloated to the point that an upgrade to Core i7 will make sense when it gets affordable.

I doubt you we will see another advance as impressive as going from 1 core too 2. I found that, more than anything, significantly improved the overall responsiveness of my computer the most over the last 2 decades. While the original Nehalem is coming as a 4 core package I suspect that most people will not require more than 2 cores in the near future.

Only time will really tell. There was a time that many people didn't think we would ever need more than 640K of ram. I have 4 gigs installed now and my next machine will likely have at least 6.

Edit: Tried to clean it up as much as possible. My spelling and grammar have always been a bit suspect.

 

[gamerk316]

My work PC: 2.8 GHZ Pentium 4: Slow as mosslasses. It takes 2-3 minutes for Toms to load because of that #*%*@#%*@#% flash page at the site index (sorry, pet peeve).

My old home PC: 3.0 GHz Pentium D: Fast, but couldn't play games due to overheating

My friends 3.2 Duo: Great speed, but lacks performance on certain high end games (he has the same GPU and memory as me)

My ~3.45 Quad: Crysis 35-55 FPS. Enough said.

 

[radnor]

Until a computer game looks and behaves like reality (we're talking visual quality and physical interaction) then of course there's room for improvement... but once we reach that point... ugh... I don't know.

That is true for the most part. The thing is atm, mainstream CPUs are fast enough for most users.
Any X2,X3 or Q6600/E2xxx will do the trick. Im using a old 3700+ Clawhammer here at work, and although is enough, it still struggles a lot in heavy multi-tasking.

But yes, my guess is, for the exception of heavy users (frantic is more the word) or enthusiasts, CPUs are now enough. CPUs will evolve to do other branches as well. Thus ill keep my fingers crossed until Bulldozer. My 4800 X2 that i have at home is more than enough for now.

Hell, my mother that is a heavy multi-tasker (not at my pace, but still a multi-tasker) in Office, WEB and other aplications (she is a School teacher Coordinator, abotu 200 persons below her + she still teaches, so look at heavy Excel+Word+PDF ) and shes rocking a Athlon 1500+ with 1gb ram. No the fastest rig on earth, but suitable for her needs. With a Raid 0 of 2 old 80GB 7200 RPM drives. Now it is good to have a son in IT

So, i guess, looking at the persons around me, and their use of the computers, yes, the actual mainstream CPUs are more than enough. GPUs are another history though.

 

[chunkymonster]

A fast single core is more than fast enough for the majority of PC users. Gaming and resource hogging games like Crysis don't fit into the category of "vast majority of PC users".

It isn't so much how fast cpu's have gotten and that they need to be faster, it's the poorly written and bloated code (*cough*Windows*cough*Vista Aero*cough*) that has in part driven the need for faster/bigger/better procs.

A 1GHz P3 Coppermine can run the hell out of Ubuntu loaded with Open Office just as fast as a dual core running Vista Business and Office 2007.

 

[Reynod]

The only killer apps out there are games the Graphics cards can't handle.

The only killer app out there is the front end on the i-phone at the moment ...

Stick any dual core 2Ghz or higher cpu into a PC box and spend big on a graphics card to get the best bang for your buck I say.

Unless your running Vista ... then get a 3 Ghz CPU ... and 4Gig of RAM.

Vista ... the Killer er ... "App" Or virus possibly sounds more accurate.

Amiga500 your point is quite sound ... for a business / home PC.

Not for a gaming box tho ...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

When we start seeing more graphically oriented themes in our daily compute experience, better cpus will be needed. Touch screens, vr, real life 3d, all these things are possible, and would be desirable, if we had better cpus. Currently? Yes, but if 1 company already had the things Ive mentioned, who do you think would be selling more?

 

[Grimmy]

'Fast Enough' is more of a matter of perspective. If your going to watch movies, run anti-virus program do office base work, then all you need is an emachine, without the bloatware the comes with it.

But on this forum, obviously fast enough will never be enough. I thought it was insane to OC to 4ghz, but no... people push it even farther. :lol:

Seem as though Intel or AMD can't really go that much faster. I mean, rather then faster, we are seeing more cores per physical CPU.

And when you have a user wanting to build a new system, or even purchase a new system, fast enough really isn't going through their minds, but perhaps what is the fastest they can afford, so they won't have to upgrade sooner then they think they need to.

 

[radnor]

When we start seeing more graphically oriented themes in our daily compute experience, better cpus will be needed. Touch screens, vr, real life 3d, all these things are possible, and would be desirable, if we had better cpus. Currently? Yes, but if 1 company already had the things Ive mentioned, who do you think would be selling more?

The problem in your dream (witch is like, VR would be smashing) is software. CPUs and GPUs and processors in general are evolving in a very fast pace. The software just isnt keeping the pace.

X86-64 is been here for 5 years. Only NOW people are THINKING of getting a 64 bits OS. And it is a major breakthrough.
Linux presents a much better kernel for some years now ( i was going to say decades, but hey, im not that evil), and only a few use it. User resistivity to change is one thing that is keeping us behind.

While me and many more on this forum we like to push our hardware to the limits, most Joe Consumer just want to use it , out-of-the-box. Some i knwo love the bloatware that comes with those computers.

 

[mford66215]

Until a computer game looks and behaves like reality (we're talking visual quality and physical interaction) then of course there's room for improvement... but once we reach that point... ugh... I don't know.

Rodney strikes again

The increase in hardware performance has spurred the development cycle (and vice/versa) ever since we got off the abacus. There's enough performance in the hardware now that bloated software can slip into mainstream platforms...which under the older systems just wasn't happening. If your code was cr@p, then nobody bought it because of performance.

The increase in performance has also allowed developers to run applets to do many things that weren't available before - some of which are useful. IM systems really can allow for better communications, telephony is MUCH better when the computer can help with message handling, and - as Rodney hinted at - the gaming environment is improved dramatically.

Of course, my home desktop is a quad core 3.4Ghz with 4G of ram and 512M graphics card just to play mmorpg's, so I'm into processor overkill anyway.

 

[spaztic7]

Until a computer game looks and behaves like reality (we're talking visual quality and physical interaction) then of course there's room for improvement... but once we reach that point... ugh... I don't know.

+1

At our given rate, even our cavemen brethren will be happy.


I've been wondering, what type of pron do cavemen look at?

 

[rodney_ws]

I've been wondering, what type of pron do cavemen look at?

If I told you, you'd never have a chubby again... so I'm gonna do the merciful thing and not tell you.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No disrespect, but eurowoman? Hairy armpits?

 

[sailer]

My two cents worth. For average tasks, my four year old 939 socket 4400+ does everything that I need. In fact, its overkill for most things. At the same time, I run a lot of business apps that eat all the cores and power I can feed them. The big reason that I switched to quad core for my new machine, and the one that's presently being built, is because the dual core 4400+ was suffering slowdowns at times. I load all four cores on my quad with business apps, so there is an obvious need for the cores and performance in that situation.

But for the average user out there? Very few even need a dual core, much less a quad core. As Rodney alluded to, when the graphics power starts simulating reality, then more power will be needed. But even that probably won't affect the average user. Its the programmers that need to change. Stop the endless bloatware (M$, but a few others), including some websites that are ever changing their looks and features, while becoming ever harder to navigate and understand. Why is it that Lotus 1-2-3, which I used when writing my masters and later doctorate thesis was so much easier to use, understand, and faster than the latest, greatest thing from M$? Oh yes, because Lotus wasn't crammed with garbage that I never use and was easy to manage, format, etc. I miss Lotus 1-2-3.

 

[KyleSTL]

I'm still happy with my system (see sig). I run all the games I play at 1024x768 (it's a 15" Samsung LCD, max res) and it has treated me well for the past 4 years (I think, I'm stuggling to remember when I got it). Hense the reason I have not upgraded yet. Do I dream of building a P45+4850+Core2 system? Yes. Is it justified by necessity? Not yet, since it's still adequate for my needs.

 

[Grimmy]

Heh.. my P4 was adequate. My E4400 was umm... very adequate. My Q6600... Well, I had cash to burn, and Vista 64bit to mess with. So I wanted Blue Screen faster x4

Edit:

But now that I have everything fixed, no more blue screens...

 

[radnor]

But now that I have everything fixed, no more blue screens...

Wait for another windows update !!!! You should never lose hope on this matters.

 

[timaahhh]

Yes a CPU is "fast enough" you can get your work done in no time. However until my applications open up as soon as I click the shortcut, so long as I don't instantly connect to a wireless network, and as long as my computer doesn't turn on the instant I press the power button CPUs, and the PC as a whole has room for improvement. Then software can improve, that usually means higher hardware demands.

People don't like old stuff. Especially my generation but you would be surprised at the number of older folks that want a really fast computer to surf the Internet. You would be surprised at the number of older people willing to drop $1000 into a computer just because they want there computer to boot faster.

Having to wait 25 odd seconds for my PC to start up and messenger to log on and drivers to load isn't a huge hit to anyones productivity. However, people still want their computers faster. The only factor isn't the CPU but its is a big factor.

 

[Grimmy]

Updates I'm not too worried about. Service Pack, I might look more forward into blue screens then.

 

[Grimmy]

Having to wait 25 odd seconds for my PC to start up and messenger to log on and drivers to load isn't a huge hit to anyones productivity. However, people still want their computers faster. The only factor isn't the CPU but its is a big factor.

Well.. takes me less then 25 secs to get back on my desktop without having to ever see a POST screen.

 

[Amiga500]

Well, the real point I'm getting at is will AMD and Intel continue to drive forward on a pure performance perspective if the majority of their market already have what they need (performance wise)?


Will concepts like the Atom be the future - simpler & cheaper?


I'm worried we could be getting to the computing equivalent of Concorde (commercial air travel).

 

[modtech]

Well everyone's assuming computer speed = cpu speed or even if they're not there's little mention of other factors.

There's a lot to gain from faster storage devices, faster network, optimized software and theses are things that "the majority of people" WILL actually notice. The CPU is important but beyond a rather lowly threshold (by our gaming standards) regular tasks are held back by other factors.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

For rodney http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/08/cinema-change-gaming-scene Maybe its closer than we think? And thats with current cpus as well