Why are desktop CPUs so slow at improving?

[tamz_msc]

AMD doesn't specify workload for TDP because their value is simply a specification for cooling the chip. AMD TDP = deltaT/conductance of the cooler.

 

[LTC8K6]

I look at it like consumer electronics. How many TV makers are their out there? Black Friday had 55" 4K Smart TVs with options galore on sale $289! Intel cut the throat of the only competition, AMD, with anti-competitive practices, and was only slapped on the hand. We as a nation didn't/don't care enough to say or do anything about it. 10 years of quad cores and ~4 generations of rebranded CPU's, and they still cost the same as they did 10 years ago. Despite massive cost saving from shrinking the process node. We are blind fools.

10 years ago we had Core 2 chips...

$500 in 2007 is about $600 today.
$250 in 2007 is about $300 today.

For the same money today, you get a shedload more performance.

The $117.00 msrp i3-8100 probably handily demolishes the 2007 top end desktop chips.

 

[goldstone77]

10 years ago we had Core 2 chips...

$500 in 2007 is about $600 today.
$250 in 2007 is about $300 today.

For the same money today, you get a shedload more performance.

The $117.00 msrp i3-8100 probably handily demolishes the 2007 top end desktop chips.

Yes, but it is no comparison to the consumer electronics industry, specifically TV. Where options and size increased dramatically while price has fallen dramatically. This is the point I was making. Intel has been raping us comparatively, but we don't care because we don't know any better. Look at Intel's profit margins, because they own a monopoly they have been making money hand over fist. Add 10 more high end competitive CPU makers, and you would have the same result as you have now with large screen LED 4K smart TV's. They would cost a nickle!

 

[LTC8K6]

Did we ever have 10 competitive high end CPU makers in the desktop PC market?

The overall desktop PC market has been shrinking markedly in the last decade or so.

The specific gaming desktop PC market is a little healthier, but we have not needed huge CPU gains in that arena until very recently with games beginning to want more than 4 cores.
Mostly we have needed GPU upgrades, which we have gotten regularly due to gamers (and miners) who have to have the latest GPU as soon as it's mentioned.

10 competitive CPU makers would probably never have survived the last decade, even if Intel was not one of them. They'd have been whittled right down pretty fast, I think.

 

[goldstone77]

Did we ever have 10 competitive high end CPU makers in the desktop PC market?

The overall desktop PC market has been shrinking markedly in the last decade or so.

The specific gaming desktop PC market is a little healthier, but we have not needed huge CPU gains in that arena until very recently with games beginning to want more than 4 cores.
Mostly we have needed GPU upgrades, which we have gotten regularly due to gamers (and miners) who have to have the latest GPU as soon as it's mentioned.

10 competitive CPU makers would probably never have survived the last decade, even if Intel was not one of them. They'd have been whittled right down pretty fast, I think.

Comparatively, looking at the market if we did have competition, they would have gone to greater lengths, and passed on the cost saving from shrinking the process, and been exponentially more innovative to the point we would require the technology(because the whole technological world would be lifted up) the same way you require a big screen TV. You can't base what could be, by sticking to the logic you inherited from the CPU field thus far. Look across the sectors, and see what innovation and competition does for other fields. There is no reason that this field would have just fell off, because it's an integral part of the future of humanity. This field is not an isolated case that it is invulnerable to economics. It's just being dictated by a monopoly, and as anywhere a monopoly exists you will find the same stagnation and inflated prices. This very reason is why a monopoly is against the law in the first place. It's counter productive.

 

[TheELF]

This field is not an isolated case that it is invulnerable to economics. It's just being dictated by a monopoly, and as anywhere a monopoly exists you will find the same stagnation and inflated prices. This very reason is why a monopoly is against the law in the first place. It's counter productive.

How many car companies are there?Are cars a nickle nowadays?
Cars just like CPU have reached their apex years ago,decades for the cars actually,as soon as they improve everything easily improvable research costs skyrocket so each new product with even the slightest improvement is still expensive.
Same goes for so many things,why is furniture still so expensive? They haven't changed anything on the table for like thousands of years and everybody makes them.

 

[goldstone77]

How many car companies are there?Are cars a nickle nowadays?
Cars just like CPU have reached their apex years ago,decades for the cars actually,as soon as they improve everything easily improvable research costs skyrocket so each new product with even the slightest improvement is still expensive.
Same goes for so many things,why is furniture still so expensive? They haven't changed anything on the table for like thousands of years and everybody makes them.

I was comparing consumer electronics, specifically TVs, where the material cost have drastically reduced(just like CPUs), and competition is aggressive and plentiful(unlike CPU market). As for Furniture/Car market depends on location. If no one is trying to undercut anyone else, and price can remain 300-1200% above cost! There are markets where companies agree with their competition on what they want to set the price. Price fixing! It's illegal and companies get caught, and others get away with it. Government isn't the best caretaker/regulator, but I'd rather have it than not.

 

[deustroop]

The $117.00 msrp i3-8100 probably handily demolishes the 2007 top end desktop chips.

Not really, or even close

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-8100+@+3.60GHz&id=3103

 

[mikeymikec]

Not really, or even close

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-8100+@+3.60GHz&id=3103

Using that website, it seems to me that LTC8K6 is correct and you're not:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3103&cmp[]=1049

Alternatively, an i3-8100 vs a c2q q6600:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3103&cmp[]=1038

 

[LTC8K6]

Not really, or even close

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-8100+@+3.60GHz&id=3103

I don't see any 2007 desktop chips at your link, and I don't think Passmark is a reliable source, but I can tell you that in Passmark an i3-7100 2 core chip will demolish a Q6600 4 core chip, even if the Q6600 is overclocked.

An i3-8100 would just demolish it worse in Passmark.

 

[Topweasel]

Not really, or even close

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-8100+@+3.60GHz&id=3103

Well, let's really look at that selection.

A.) Those are mostly overclocked chips.

B.) Not a single one of them where available in 2007.

The CPU's that the 8100 would be competing with would be the Core 2 Quad and Phenom X4. Both of which just in IPC the 8100 walk circles around.

The 9600BE got 2577 and the Core 2 Quad 6700 got a 3299.

 

[deustroop]

My bad--I misread the referenced article.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

I look at it like consumer electronics. How many TV makers are their out there? Black Friday had 55" 4K Smart TVs with options galore on sale $289! Intel cut the throat of the only competition, AMD, with anti-competitive practices, and was only slapped on the hand. We as a nation didn't/don't care enough to say or do anything about it. 10 years of quad cores and ~4 generations of rebranded CPU's, and they still cost the same as they did 10 years ago. Despite massive cost saving from shrinking the process node. We are blind fools.

buy AMD like me XD but short sell their stocks.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I was comparing consumer electronics, specifically TVs, where the material cost have drastically reduced(just like CPUs), and competition is aggressive and plentiful(unlike CPU market). As for Furniture/Car market depends on location. If no one is trying to undercut anyone else, and price can remain 300-1200% above cost! There are markets where companies agree with their competition on what they want to set the price. Price fixing! It's illegal and companies get caught, and others get away with it. Government isn't the best caretaker/regulator, but I'd rather have it than not.

Hate to tell you, but there is a big difference between designing, building, and validating a TV and a cpu.

 

[goldstone77]

Hate to tell you, but there is a big difference between designing, building, and validating a TV and a cpu.

I'm talking about lack of plentiful aggressive competition and monopolies as it pertains to economics. The product doesn't matter. We didn't have 10 manufactures when the first TV was built, and I'm sure that building the first one was hard to do. I'm talking about drastic reduction in material costs with hardly any change in price. AMD is an example of what 1 competitor can do for the industry. Last year 8 core 6900K and 6950K sold for ~$1,200 and ~$1800. 9 Months ago AMD is selling 6 and 8 cores for ~$200 and ~$300 that can outperform those Broadwell chips in streaming and some multithreading applications, and Intel is selling 10 core CPU's for $959.89. Almost half the cost of 9 months ago, and increased HEDT core count 80% to 18. Intel added 50% more cores to their mainstream line after ~10 years of quad cores. Add 8 more aggressive competitive CPU manufactures 10 years ago, and CPU's today would be exponentially more powerful, and cost a nickel(slight exaggeration how much does sand cost?).

 

[Thunder 57]

I'm talking about lack of plentiful aggressive competition and monopolies as it pertains to economics. The product doesn't matter. We didn't have 10 manufactures when the first TV was built, and I'm sure that building the first one was hard to do. I'm talking about drastic reduction in material costs with hardly any change in price. AMD is an example of what 1 competitor can do for the industry. Last year 8 core 6900K and 6950K sold for ~$1,200 and ~$1800. 9 Months ago AMD is selling 6 and 8 cores for ~$200 and ~$300 that can outperform those Broadwell chips in streaming and some multithreading applications, and Intel is selling 10 core CPU's for $959.89. Almost half the cost of 9 months ago, and increased HEDT core count 80% to 18. Intel added 50% more cores to their mainstream line after ~10 years of quad cores. Add 8 more aggressive competitive CPU manufactures 10 years ago, and CPU's today would be exponentially more powerful, and cost a nickel(slight exaggeration how much does sand cost?).

There is some naivety here. CPU's have to be built in super expensive fabs on the latest processes. It is also a market that is very hard to get into.

No doubt competition helps. AMD has proven that big time this year. But take your, "How much does sand cost?", there is more to it then that. Someone has to pay for those fabs. Then there is R&D, packaging, validation, and this thing that some think is evil these days, profit. I'm sure I missed some other expenses as well. THe idea that if there was more competition then CPU prices would be close to the price of the silicon that goes into them is a bit shortsighted.

 

[TheELF]

Intel added 50% more cores to their mainstream line after ~10 years of quad cores. Add 8 more aggressive competitive CPU manufactures 10 years ago, and CPU's today would be exponentially more powerful, and cost a nickel(slight exaggeration how much does sand cost?).

Intel also added 50% of processing power to the haswell g3258 (3.2Ghz -> 4.8Ghz) with zero new product from amd.
With skylake they went crazy and everything could be overclocked giving a huge performance boost to every CPU, again nothing from amd in sight.
With kaby they gave HTT to the pentium for a 30% increase in the worst case scenario and up to 100% increase in gaming...also the official i3-7350k and again nothing from amd to justify any of it.

Just because things coincide doesn't mean that one caused the other.

 

[goldstone77]

Intel also added 50% of processing power to the haswell g3258 (3.2Ghz -> 4.8Ghz) with zero new product from amd.
With skylake they went crazy and everything could be overclocked giving a huge performance boost to every CPU, again nothing from amd in sight.
With kaby they gave HTT to the pentium for a 30% increase in the worst case scenario and up to 100% increase in gaming...also the official i3-7350k and again nothing from amd to justify any of it.

Just because things coincide doesn't mean that one caused the other.

You are kidding right? I'm sorry but you are being very naive if you think Intel would willingly reduce a brand new high end more powerful processor for half price just because! And the i9 line appeared out of nowhere! Competition drives innovation, and a monopoly causes stagnation. The last ~10 years proves that, and thus my comparison to consumer electronics! Don't believe the hype you have been hand fed. Look at Intel's financials! Feeding on us like a greedy pig while material cost have dropped to 1/10 what they were. Meaning 10x more CPUs per wafer! They use purified sand to make wafers! 59,387,00 in 2016, and their gross profit was 36,191,00(that's billions)! WOW! Maybe it takes an understanding of economics and finances in order to understand what I'm saying, and not everyone is going to get it.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/financials?query=income-statement

 

[frozentundra123456]

There is some naivety here. CPU's have to be built in super expensive fabs on the latest processes. It is also a market that is very hard to get into.

No doubt competition helps. AMD has proven that big time this year. But take your, "How much does sand cost?", there is more to it then that. Someone has to pay for those fabs. Then there is R&D, packaging, validation, and this thing that some think is evil these days, profit. I'm sure I missed some other expenses as well. THe idea that if there was more competition then CPU prices would be close to the price of the silicon that goes into them is a bit shortsighted.

This is the point I was getting at. Pretty much any manufacturer can throw together components and make a TV. The economic and technical barrier to entry is much higher for cpus. Also there is the general principle that technology improves rapidly early in the life cycle of a product and becomes increasingly (exponentially??) more difficult as the product matures. I am an old timer, and we *did* see the kind of price/performance improvements the OP is talking about early in the life cycle of cpus and computers, but we are far past that point now.

In fact, we are pretty much topped out in clockspeed and ipc. All that is left is moar cores, and there is a limit to that, both in designing the chip and having software that can utilize it. With all the ranting for AMD and competition, they really did not bring any technical advance over what was already available. In fact both clockspeed and ipc are lower than what was already available. All they brought was lower prices, which is a good thing of course, but far from the 20 core, 10ghz, 25.00 (or whatever) cpus some are claiming would have been available if only evil intel hadnt squashed all the competition. Of course, without Intel, we could have been using Vishera for the last 5 years. And I dont want to hear how it is Intel's fault that AMD brought out that inefficient chip. Clearly it was a poor design choice, since they managed to bring out a much more competitive cpu in Zen when in a worse financial position.

 

[goldstone77]

"can't see the forest for the trees" The "product" does not matter, and like I said previously the lack of understanding of economics is creating a learning curve. Corporations are not inherently evil, but they are inherently profit driven(and there is no clause saying they have to be moral), and Intel has been found guilty of anti-competitive practices since the creation of AMD, so Intel wouldn't have a monopoly. Well, that didn't work now did it. Several of you seamly believe that, because it's too hard plentiful aggressive competitive competition wouldn't lead to any innovation or reduction in price with a drastic reduction in material cost! I'm sorry but this just shows a lack of fundamental understanding in economics.

 

[ehume]

This is the point I was getting at. Pretty much any manufacturer can throw together components and make a TV. The economic and technical barrier to entry is much higher for cpus. Also there is the general principle that technology improves rapidly early in the life cycle of a product and becomes increasingly (exponentially??) more difficult as the product matures. I am an old timer, and we *did* see the kind of price/performance improvements the OP is talking about early in the life cycle of cpus and computers, but we are far past that point now.

In fact, we are pretty much topped out in clockspeed and ipc. All that is left is moar cores, and there is a limit to that, both in designing the chip and having software that can utilize it. With all the ranting for AMD and competition, they really did not bring any technical advance over what was already available. In fact both clockspeed and ipc are lower than what was already available. All they brought was lower prices, which is a good thing of course, but far from the 20 core, 10ghz, 25.00 (or whatever) cpus some are claiming would have been available if only evil intel hadnt squashed all the competition. Of course, without Intel, we could have been using Vishera for the last 5 years. And I dont want to hear how it is Intel's fault that AMD brought out that inefficient chip. Clearly it was a poor design choice, since they managed to bring out a much more competitive cpu in Zen when in a worse financial position.

You may consider yourself an "old timer," but can you comment about the rapid progress we saw in CRT TV's? That supports your point about initial wild and rapid improvement of devices followed by slow improvement. In fact, CRT's were supplanted by flatscreens, which are showing the same kinds of proliferating improvements now. Or consider aircraft: jets improved, first the shapes and now the amount of fuel they burn. But by now they all look alike. And cars. I my youth we saw many cars dead on the side of the road. Now by comparison hardly any. As you so rightly point out, all products exhibit a J-curve.

But still, competition plays a part. And companies hear about what other companies are doing before the products hit the market. When they do so we can look rewtrospectivelyat moves the were inexplicable at the time and say, for example, that Intel was responding then to what they thought AMD would be doing soon.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is the point I was getting at. Pretty much any manufacturer can throw together components and make a TV. The economic and technical barrier to entry is much higher for cpus. Also there is the general principle that technology improves rapidly early in the life cycle of a product and becomes increasingly (exponentially??) more difficult as the product matures. I am an old timer, and we *did* see the kind of price/performance improvements the OP is talking about early in the life cycle of cpus and computers, but we are far past that point now.

"can't see the forest for the trees" The "product" does not matter, and like I said previously the lack of understanding of economics is creating a learning curve. Corporations are not inherently evil, but they are inherently profit driven(and there is no clause saying they have to be moral), and Intel has been found guilty of anti-competitive practices since the creation of AMD, so Intel wouldn't have a monopoly. Well, that didn't work now did it. Several of you seamly believe that, because it's too hard plentiful aggressive competitive competition wouldn't lead to any innovation or reduction in price with a drastic reduction in material cost! I'm sorry but this just shows a lack of fundamental understanding in economics.

I understand economics perfectly well. In fact, I have an MBA. I just disagree with your oversimplified viewpoint.

 

[goldstone77]

I understand economics perfectly well. In fact, I have an MBA. I just disagree with your oversimplified viewpoint.

Okay, let's break it down by defining the variables in simplest terms. What is a monopoly? Why is it good to have competition? What happens when there is a drastic reduction in material cost in a field driven by a monopoly?
1. As the sole providers of a product or service, monopolies have no competition and no price restrictions. ... If left unmonitored and unregulated, monopolies can adversely affect businesses, consumers and even the economy.
2. Competition exists in every field, and, believe it or not, can actually be good for your venture. Competition leads to innovation. ... Competition shakes off complacency. If your company is consistently trying to innovate and better itself, your employees will be encouraged to push themselves.
3. 10 years of quad cores, 4 years of rebranded cpus, and cooperation making more than 50% in gross profits!

 

[ehume]

Okay, let's break it down by defining the variables in simplest terms. What is a monopoly? Why is it good to have competition? What happens when there is a drastic reduction in material cost in a field driven by a monopoly?
1. As the sole providers of a product or service, monopolies have no competition and no price restrictions. ... If left unmonitored and unregulated, monopolies can adversely affect businesses, consumers and even the economy.
2. Competition exists in every field, and, believe it or not, can actually be good for your venture. Competition leads to innovation. ... Competition shakes off complacency. If your company is consistently trying to innovate and better itself, your employees will be encouraged to push themselves.
3. 10 years of quad cores, 4 years of rebranded cpus, and cooperation making more than 50% in gross profits!

And to reinforce that: generic drug makers conspired so that only one company would make each of the formerly patnented drugs. Prices have gone up drastically on those.

 

[ninaholic37]

Okay, let's break it down by defining the variables in simplest terms. What is a monopoly? Why is it good to have competition? What happens when there is a drastic reduction in material cost in a field driven by a monopoly?
1. As the sole providers of a product or service, monopolies have no competition and no price restrictions. ... If left unmonitored and unregulated, monopolies can adversely affect businesses, consumers and even the economy.
2. Competition exists in every field, and, believe it or not, can actually be good for your venture. Competition leads to innovation. ... Competition shakes off complacency. If your company is consistently trying to innovate and better itself, your employees will be encouraged to push themselves.
3. 10 years of quad cores, 4 years of rebranded cpus, and cooperation making more than 50% in gross profits!

It's also possible that Intel isn't increasing performance and reducing price because they don't want to create a monopoly so they are just staying ahead of AMD as much as legally makes sense. That's surely only a small part of the (possible) reasons though.