4 ms·
I have a Intel i5 2500 that I paid $209 for in April 2011. I'm looking at new i9 desktop chips and they're like 50% faster. 10 years? WTF? The laptop chips are
by x87678r 6y ago
I have a Intel i5 2500 that I paid $209 for in April 2011. I'm looking at new i9 desktop chips and they're like 50% faster. 10 years? WTF? The laptop chips are barely faster.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500/m816115vsm517 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-...
- PaulWaldman 6y agoIt would be interesting to see when these benchmarks were taken. I have a feeling that most of the i5 Benchmarks are from prior to the Spectre and Meltdown mitigations.
- hmexx 6y agoThings have indeed slowed down but you're cherry picking numbers. +50% single-thread but +200% in multi-threaded!
- x87678r 6y agoAgreed but I dont think I do much that would keep more than 4 cores maxxed out.
- trimbo 6y agoI consistently recommend Hennessy and Patterson's Turing Award Talk[1] as a good overview of the past, present and future of chip performance. [1] - This will take you directly to the meat of the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVeEjsn8Ts&t=28m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVeEjsn8Ts&t=28m10s
- ac29 6y agoWe've reached a point where you really can't get that much more frequency out of chips, and there's only so much you can do to attempt to get more done per clock cycle. Especially now that its made clear that much of these attempts lead to the various speculative execution bugs like spectre that have been discovered over the past few years. The days where clock speeds on processors was doubling every year or two are long gone, and its not because chip makers have gotten lazy.
- KindOne 6y agoWhat about this benchmark? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900-vs-Intel-i5-2500/3487vs803 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900-vs-Intel-...