3 ms·
I still have a $1.5K system doing the same. I'm pretty sure it suggests that after Moore's Law computers now last significantly longer than they used to. Only
by Someone1234 8y ago
I still have a $1.5K system doing the same. I'm pretty sure it suggests that after Moore's Law computers now last significantly longer than they used to.
Only major hardware improvement in that period is Nvidia's GTX 1060/1070/1080 series graphics cards and faster PCI based SSD storage. CPUs and memory have barely moved.
- p1necone 8y agoI think it's just as much Intel just not having competition/incentive to improve as it is Moore's Law. Until Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses there was very little performance improvement generation by generation in intel processors. For example: Over 2011 - 2017 there was a ~18% (userbenchmark) improvement in the *700 i7 model. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700/1985vs3887 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs... But then Ryzen came out and the very next model (released in the same year) was already a ~23% improvement. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8700/3887vs3940 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-...
- ethebubbeth 8y agoThe "Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses" portion is definitely in full effect here. It got Intel to move from 4 to 6 cores on the *700 i7 part. However, both in the SC Mixed results on the benchmarks you linked, and in individual benchmarks at Anandtech ( https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127), the single threaded results track previous generations. Intel still had to go wide to increase performance due to competition from AMD. They didn't increase generational improvement on their individual cores.