3 ms·

That i7 has 6 cores. So all things being equal 13,638/6 = 2,273 PassMark score per core. Considering the FX-57 is single core, we're really comparing 731 to 2,2

That i7 has 6 cores. So all things being equal 13,638/6 = 2,273 PassMark score per core. Considering the FX-57 is single core, we're really comparing 731 to 2,273, which is about 3x the performance per core in TEN YEARS! Power usage is more impressive and the ability to create and sell multi-core CPU's certainly is, but shoving more and more cores into chip is cheating. Its clear we've hit some wall here and the only way to keep up with performance demand is keep making chips with lots of mediocre cores. Moore's law is dead. No biggie. It happened and no one noticed and those who did, didn't seem to care.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Power usage is more impressive and the ability to create and sell multi-core CPU's certainly is, but shoving more and more cores into chip is cheating. No, its not. Shoving more components into a single IC is what Moore's Law is about. Performance per core was one manifestation of that, but a "core" isn't the fundamental unit the Law addresses.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  On a practical level it certainly matters for single threaded applications. They're just not benefiting like they should. Formally, Moore's law is just about transistor density not performance, so this is all academic. Historically, density was tied to performance. That's just not true anymore and hasn't been for at least a decade.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Formally, Moore's law is just about transistor density not performance Formally, it was about number of components per integrated circuit, not density of components (though related observations about density and performance were made very early on, and the 18 month, rather than two year, version actually is about performance, but wasn't from Moore.) > Historically, density was tied to performance. Its still tied to overall performance (computations performable b the chip in a given period of time). Its not tied to per core (i.e., single-threaded) performance when the larger number of components is divided among multiple cores, and that does make it harder to make full use of the available performance in some applications. But that doesn't mean Moore's Law is dead, it just means that more programming skills (possibly, outsourced to the creators of better programming languages/tools) are needed to fully take advantage of the available performance.
phaemon 12y ago
So, in other words, performance did not stop improving in 2005, as it is now "about 3x the performance per core"? Personally, I think that it's too soon to say whether computing power is beginning to plateau. Certainly no-one has shown any good evidence for it so far.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Power usage is more impressive and the ability to create and sell multi-core CPU's certainly is, but shoving more and more cores into chip is cheating. No, its not. Shoving more components into a single IC is what Moore's Law is about. Performance per core was one manifestation of that, but a "core" isn't the fundamental unit the Law addresses.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
On a practical level it certainly matters for single threaded applications. They're just not benefiting like they should. Formally, Moore's law is just about transistor density not performance, so this is all academic. Historically, density was tied to performance. That's just not true anymore and hasn't been for at least a decade.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Formally, Moore's law is just about transistor density not performance Formally, it was about number of components per integrated circuit, not density of components (though related observations about density and performance were made very early on, and the 18 month, rather than two year, version actually is about performance, but wasn't from Moore.) > Historically, density was tied to performance. Its still tied to overall performance (computations performable b the chip in a given period of time). Its not tied to per core (i.e., single-threaded) performance when the larger number of components is divided among multiple cores, and that does make it harder to make full use of the available performance in some applications. But that doesn't mean Moore's Law is dead, it just means that more programming skills (possibly, outsourced to the creators of better programming languages/tools) are needed to fully take advantage of the available performance.

phaemon 12y ago

So, in other words, performance did not stop improving in 2005, as it is now "about 3x the performance per core"? Personally, I think that it's too soon to say whether computing power is beginning to plateau. Certainly no-one has shown any good evidence for it so far.