How come Graphic cards keep getting better but processors have seemed to reach their peak and are only getting better at a snails pace?
>>55274576
Because intel is better than gpu manufacturers at semiconducting.
>>55274576
Because processors have been more focused on power efficiency in the last few years than highly improving performance. Also we're reaching the limits of what we can do on silicon.
AMD gave up
>>55274576
Graphics are much more easily parallelizable. Single-core performance is of little relevance.
Same is true in the server area, modern bazillion-core Xeons are many times faster than, say, old six-core Nehalems, because they're running things that can take advantage of a pile of cores that don't individually have to be very fast. For the things most people here care about running on their CPUs - which is, despite all the derision, vidya gaems - you just do not have that kind of scalability. Single-core performance matters and there's no way to effectively make use of twenty cores.
we don't need better. 640k was already enough.
Once a profitable process for whichever of the materials it is that replaces silicon is market ready we will begin to see improvements similar to the past. Compare a 2500k to like a Pentium 4 then compare it to Skylake...
>>55274623
this
>>55274602
oh AMD gave up. Right. Yeah not like they were competing with a company that made 55 billion dollars last year. Meanwhile AMD is fighting for any marketshare in the CPU market and trying to fight nvidia on the desktop and intel in the mobile GPU/CPU space.
Theres a reason why AMD loves talking about consoles. It's the only fucking market they have a handle on.
The TDP of GPUs are higher than ever while processors at their lowest TDPs since the 90s.
>>55274774
Will we see passively cooled desktop class chips again??
>>55274576
the powers that be have decided that plebs shouldn't have a lot of processing power, it's dangerous
>>55274602
AMD don't have the resources to compete with either Nvidia or Intel one on one, and they're trying to take both on at the same time. Ultimately, AMD can't do any better than they're doing right now. It's literally a case of this or nothing in terms of "competition". Nobody will step into the void if/when AMD are gone, because the desktop market is dying on its arse. All any potential AMD buyer will be interested in is their technology and patents.
>>55274793
Probably on the next die shrink. I don't think the i5 or the i7 would be passively cooled though.
>>55275298
A passively cooled i3 class package would be attractive to me. Something silent that can still do some work.
>>55274576
What are you talking about?
Intel CPUs are still improving quite well with each generation, just not as much as 10 years ago because it's such a dense package and there's so many traitorous.
If you think it's so easy, why don't you get a job at Intel and help out
>>55275832
So many transistors*
>>55274815
>Ultimately, AMD can't do any better than they're doing right now
They could have if Intel hadn't been a bunch of anticompetitive assholes. Intel still owes the EU over a billion dollars from an anti-trust suit they lost ten years ago.
>>55275832
very few people run the CPU at the frequency marketed here ..
Someone asks a decent question.
>>55274576
Someone provides a factually accurate answer.
>>55274621
All /g/ does is joke about amd, nvidia, and intel
Kys's
>>55274576
graphics cards are the bottle neck right now. There are really powerful processors, but consumers have no need for them, so they are very expensive since intel doesnt get a huge return on making them.
when gpus catch up to cpus and programmers realize they can use more than 1 thread for a program youll see cpus pick up.
>>55275965
Pretty much this
Outside of non realworld consumer situations having a CPU better than a 6600k/6700k or equivilent is just absolute overkill, I can't even think of any situation you'd need something more than that
As long as your CPU isn't AMD you're good to go
from what I know, GPUs perform simple tasks a shitton of times, mostly 4x4 matrix multiplication.
That means that you can just add moar cores and increase the frequency to easily parallelize and boost the speed of the calculations.
However, CPUs need to do a much wider array of tasks, so adding more cores doesn't mean much, and increasing frequency does little since most of the time the processor is waiting for data from memory.
To increase CPU speed, people would have to improve their coding. To increase GPU speed, just throw money at it.
>>55275832
>muh gaymer testing
Stop.
>>55275965
>There are really powerful processors
No, there are just dies with huge amounts of cores on them.
Until graphene stops being a clickbait meme, and is ACTUALLY used for half the shit people have been hyping it up for, silicon gains aren't going to be anything major like they were in the 90's, assuming graphene is actually viable for CPU's, because it shifts yearly from being impossible, to possible, to impossible again, to possible-but-really-hard
>>55276456
He's right though.
>>55276216
>so adding more cores doesn't mean much
bullshit
intel has made huge gains. 2600k was a 216mm2 die, 6700k is a 120mm2 die and is 30-40% faster than the 2600k clock for clock with a 4-5x faster igpu as well.
>>55274576
Intel has improved the igpu of their cpus
The real question is, will Intel's integrated graphics ever be worth using? I'm not expecting them to compete with AMD/Nvidia in the desktop graphics market, but for laptops/transformables, it'd be nice if they were powerful enough to do some moderate gaming on them. Especially now that Microsoft is trying to get the technologically illiterate into PC gaming by bringing the Xbox brand to Windows. The Windows store gives you a warning that you need a PC designed for gaming to play stuff like Forza, some idiots will be scared off by that because they don't know what that entails. It would be nice if the integrated graphics on Intel processors were enough to run those games for the technologically illiterate who just want to buy a game from the app store and play it.
Also, now that DX12 supports multiple GPUs natively, the integrated graphics that everybody has being able to give a modest FPS boost in games would be appreciated.
>>55277435
Intel has no intention of getting into the graphics competition with the integrated graphics. You think they are just going to heat up their cpus because you want to game. Its unnecessary since they dont target games and it does everything someone who doesnt game would need barring people with specific needs for gpus like job related stuff.
If you need that get a discrete gpu. The current system works.
>>55277527
>because you want to game.
No, I already have a rig for that. My concern is people who treat the Windows app store like the Android app store and think their computer will be able to run any game available as long as its new. Traditional computers are becoming more like mobile devices because thats what normies like and buy.
>If you need that get a discrete gpu. The current system works.
Not really, Intel is already making their iGPUs more powerful and it has to be for a reason. I want to know how far they plan to go.
>>55277568
The gpus scale with the new cpus because of the changes in architecture being used. Not because they plan to make gpus stronger but that the cpu is more efficient overall which makes the design of the integrated gpu outdated.
You can game on low settings and resolution with an integrated card already.
>>55274774
>The TDP of GPUs are higher than ever
They've been dropping for years now m8
1070 only has like 150W TDP
>>55278135
and 10 years ago the the high midrange card was 105w
>>55274576
Because processing power isn't bottlenecking the cards yet. (or very little) thus less need for better CPU's (consumer grade)
>>55278187
But look at performance vs. TDP
While there has been an arch of power draw, it's been on the decline for a good while now since Fermi
>>55274774
>processors at their lowest TDPs since the 90s.
My 11W TDP Pentium 3 does not agree.
>>55278385
my 7.5w skylake does
>>55278241
And CPUs have become vastly more efficient per watt, especially in server farms and on the low end.
What's the difference? I'm saying the relative difference in performance increase is because CPUs have a lower TDP limit. Other than AMD's one insane chip we're nowhere near 300W x64 chips.
>>55278398
I would not call that a mainstream desktop processor but still, that's some fucking wizardry.
>>55274576
For normal consumers, CPU needs are not increasing.
It's a multi-layer issue.
Graphics cards still have room for improvement, especially with amd's new tech, so it's easy to make gains by just making the video card better and putting more load on it than the cpu.
cpu's are at a roadblock which they can't make the stuff inside them much smaller.
They could just make them bigger, but that doesn't really solve the problem ans just creates new ones by making the motherboard space and everything attached to it even more cramped.
To be honest it's not really an issue of "making it faster" anyway as current cpu's are incredibly beastly, having at least four cores at 3.5Ghz or better for a total of 14Ghz or better on most modern cpu's.
Of course nothing reaches that since hardly anything is actually programmed to take advantage of more than one core, especially games.
That would actually take effort on the programmer's end.
the "limitations" that most people see on the consumer side of things has to do with the fact that most developers of any software from games to industry standard software rarely code their programs to utilize anything over two cores. most of the time, even for the rare programs where the developers decided to get their feet wet in the pool of multi-threaded design hardly ever even finish the code to make even two core mode completely functional. kinda the same reason why NVIDIA decided to stop supporting sli modes past dual sli. the cards didnt need tweaking from their side, the developers needed to add support for more than one graphics card. the only game i know of that actually does is crysis
>>55274576
Does that mean my Phenom II X4 955 is still good?
>>55278398
>7.5w skylake
You mean your dual core i3?
