3 ms·

In 2010, you could've bought an Intel i7 980X for $1,000 (why would you? B-but still...) with six cores @ 3.33 GHz and easily OCed to 4 GHz. I think we're a ye

In 2010, you could've bought an Intel i7 980X for $1,000 (why would you? B-but still...) with six cores @ 3.33 GHz and easily OCed to 4 GHz. I think we're a year or two away before beefy, AAA games begin demanding 4 GHz minimum, and new CPUs barely offer over 4 GHz clocks as it is, so... we've already been there! CPU power's been flatlined, especially when you compare it to GPU power.

whynotminot 8y ago
Frequency is not a great comparator for different generations of CPUs. Your overall point is accurate, but your metric is not.
- loeg 8y ago
  It's not even accurate to say CPU power has flatlined since Westmere. Instructions per cycle is significantly higher today than in 2010, so performance at the same nominal clock frequency is substantially better. Not to mention power efficiency gains since 2010.
  - shrimp_emoji 8y ago
    I said it's flatlined from seeing graphs like this[0] and this[1] (again, compared to GPUs). But I'm far from an expert here (just an enthusiastic consumer), so what you're saying is news to me. The more flowers you can lay at what looks like the grave of Moore's law, the better. I don't like being a pessimist! :3 0: http://www.carestreamblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CSH_CPU-GPU_Chart.png http://www.carestreamblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/0... 1: https://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacPro2013/cpugpu.png https://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacPro2013/cpugpu.p...
jdietrich 8y ago
An i5-9400 has the same number of cores, a lower base clock speed (2.9GHz) but is around 50% faster than the i7-980X. It also costs $180 and draws 75% less power. CPU performance isn't increasing nearly as quickly as it used to, but it isn't stagnant. AMD's Zen 2 architecture looks incredibly promising. Credible leaks suggest a 16c/32t Ryzen 9 running at 4.3GHz base, with a 25% IPC improvement over the previous generation.
jedbrown 8y ago
The SIMD units are now 4x wider with 4x more ILP (dual-issue FMA). Include increased core count and we've kept pace with Moore, though only for vectorizable code that is not memory bound.

whynotminot 8y ago

Frequency is not a great comparator for different generations of CPUs. Your overall point is accurate, but your metric is not.

loeg 8y ago
It's not even accurate to say CPU power has flatlined since Westmere. Instructions per cycle is significantly higher today than in 2010, so performance at the same nominal clock frequency is substantially better. Not to mention power efficiency gains since 2010.
- shrimp_emoji 8y ago
  I said it's flatlined from seeing graphs like this[0] and this[1] (again, compared to GPUs). But I'm far from an expert here (just an enthusiastic consumer), so what you're saying is news to me. The more flowers you can lay at what looks like the grave of Moore's law, the better. I don't like being a pessimist! :3 0: http://www.carestreamblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CSH_CPU-GPU_Chart.png http://www.carestreamblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/0... 1: https://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacPro2013/cpugpu.png https://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mac/MacPro2013/cpugpu.p...

jdietrich 8y ago

An i5-9400 has the same number of cores, a lower base clock speed (2.9GHz) but is around 50% faster than the i7-980X. It also costs $180 and draws 75% less power. CPU performance isn't increasing nearly as quickly as it used to, but it isn't stagnant. AMD's Zen 2 architecture looks incredibly promising. Credible leaks suggest a 16c/32t Ryzen 9 running at 4.3GHz base, with a 25% IPC improvement over the previous generation.

jedbrown 8y ago

The SIMD units are now 4x wider with 4x more ILP (dual-issue FMA). Include increased core count and we've kept pace with Moore, though only for vectorizable code that is not memory bound.