Why are desktop CPUs so slow at improving?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Verndewdimus

Member
Nov 18, 2016
60
21
81
www.reverbnation.com
according to soft systems its a matter of scaling. the question is, why dont two threads account for more than 30% +/-, and why isnt that the case in core counts as well? It has more to do with how missed cache hits are handled and how thread through put is processed. according to soft systems , a VISC approach is needed.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3535.pdf Ideally , what anyone would like to see is a 100% performance boost after you add a core or thread, but that simply isnt the case
 
Last edited:

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
Progress naturally slows once a technology matures. How many car manufacturers are there? Is a 2017 car a lot more advanced than a 2007 car? Apart from a slight increase in horsepower, lower emissions and some fancier electronics, the car of today isn't that different from one 10 years ago.

Using your example of TVs, around 10 years ago I bought a 42" 1080P TV for about $1500. Nowadays for $1500 I can buy 60" or bigger 4K TVs. That's roughly a 2x increase in screen area and a 4x increase in pixel density. Colours and contrast are better too, but is it orders of magnitudes better? Of course not.

In 2007 we were rocking Core 2 Quads under 3GHz, with no SMT and IPC levels about 50% lower than today.

In terms of improvements, comparing a Q6600 to 8700K we are looking at a 3x improvement in terms of ST, and about a 5 - 6x improvement in terms of MT. That's strictly gains from IPC, clockspeeds and core/thread counts, and not including AVX workloads that can show even bigger increases.

I'd say that's not bad improvement for a supposed monopoly (duopoly is more accurate, hello AMD).

Would we have even better CPUs today with more competition? Possibly. Would it be significantly better than what is currently available? Probably not. As others have pointed out, the easy improvements aka 'low hanging fruit' has been picked clean long ago. We are well into the age of incremental improvements now. Maybe when we finally stop using 'sand' ;) to make CPUs we may yet again see a revolutionary leap in performance.


Stop trying to use a bad bait and switch($1,500 60" or bigger 4K TV??? rip off!) to distract from the topic by trying to use my inference of economics laws, and how they have driven consumer electronics(TVs). There is no doubt in my mind that a feature rich Smart Ultra HD 4K TV, made by arguably the best TV manufacturer in the world, is orders of magnitudes better, less weighing, more energy efficient, and cheaper than the heavy 150lb, dumb, piece of crap 60HZ stutter machine you bought 10 years ago!
Samsung - 55" Class (54.6" Diag.) - LED - 2160p - Smart - 4K Ultra HD TV $499.99
Product Weight With Stand
36.4 pounds
I'd say that's not bad improvement for a supposed monopoly (duopoly is more accurate, hello AMD).
This is the same problem that many other commenters have expressed. An augmented view devoid of reality dictated by a monopoly market. You can see the timeline of corruption that started with Intel's creation of AMD on youtube AdoredTV "Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology." In the video he sets a timeline of showing how intel created a monopoly, and through anti-competitive practices maintained it. At one point AMD had the highest performing processor, and could not give 1 million of them away to Dell for free. Laws of economics do not care what market they are being applied too, which is the basis for my argument "Why are desktop CPUs so slow at improving?"
 

Burpo

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2013
4,223
473
126
Seems the basis of your "argument" is your bitterness for intel..
" augmented view devoid of reality"
What are you using for augmentation these days? lol :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: tential

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
Seems the basis of your "argument" is your bitterness for intel..
" augmented view devoid of reality"
What are you using for augmentation these days? lol :cool:
Bitterness: anger and disappointment at being treated unfairly; resentment. Yeah, that is a good word to describe how I feel about being lied to and abused, and taken advantage of as a consumer of desktop processors. 3 of my machines have Intel CPUs in them, and I was more than happy to purchase them! I had no clue about Intel being a monopoly. Everything I read told me Intel CPU's were the best. It wasn't until recently I found out the truth. Intel's great marketing has been pulling the wool over my eyes virtually my entire life, and I was basking in the bliss of Intel's marketing SUN. I love technology, so yeah I feel like I was robbed of a potentially much better technological past, present, and future. Imagine if someone kidnapped you and put you in a small 5'x5'x5' completely dark box, and only fed you slop. The only thing you knew of the light was when they opened a small hatch hurled a spoonful of delicious slop at you. You have been living in the dark, and eating slop all your life that you didn't know there was an entire world full of michelin star restaurants, and sunny beaches. That past, present, and future was stolen from you and you were content, because you didn't know any better. It is a bitter pill to swallow.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
Imagine if someone kidnapped you and put you in a small 5'x5'x5' completely dark box, and only fed you slop. The only thing you knew of the light was when they opened a small hatch hurled a spoonful of delicious slop at you. You have been living in the dark, and eating slop all your life that you didn't know there was an entire world full of michelin star restaurants, and sunny beaches. That past, present, and future was stolen from you and you were content, because you didn't know any better. It is a bitter pill to swallow.

As someone who was almost kidnapped as a young child, discussing Intel vs. AMD CPUs is nowhere near that level of comparison. You should probably tone down the hyperbole a little bit, and keep the discussion on the technical/business differences.

They are CPU companies, with competing products. That is all they are. Neither Intel or AMD is going to kidnap you and feed you slop.
 

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
As someone who was almost kidnapped as a young child, discussing Intel vs. AMD CPUs is nowhere near that level of comparison. You should probably tone down the hyperbole a little bit, and keep the discussion on the technical/business differences.

They are CPU companies, with competing products. That is all they are. Neither Intel or AMD is going to kidnap you and feed you slop.

Sorry it wasn't my intention to offend or have anyone think I was imply CPU companies were kidnapping children as I never linked the two together in the story. It was an attempt at describing how I felt about being ignorant of the economics situations of the desktop market for most of my life. Nevertheless, if you were offended, irritated, or hurt by the story I made up I'm sorry.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,571
126
As someone who was almost kidnapped as a young child, discussing Intel vs. AMD CPUs is nowhere near that level of comparison. You should probably tone down the hyperbole a little bit, and keep the discussion on the technical/business differences.

They are CPU companies, with competing products. That is all they are. Neither Intel or AMD is going to kidnap you and feed you slop.
I agree, and I had both AMD and Intel processors. In fact the first computer I built was a Socket A system a few months after release.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
My first one was a K6-2 300mhz on an Asus Super Socket 7 motherboard. I couldn't afford to build one with the Pentium II back in those days. There was quite the price difference between the two companies back then. Of course I knew it wasn't as fast as Intel's offerings, but it gave me like 80% of the performance for 50-60% of the price.

Looking back, I always built AMD systems up until around 2011/2012. They just weren't competitive for many years with Intel after Sandy Bridge was released. But they're back on track now, and if I were building a PC today, I'd likely go with the Ryzen 1700 or 1700X on sale (I saw the 1700X on sale for $270 in the deal sub-forum earlier).
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,571
126
My first one was a K6-2 300mhz on an Asus Super Socket 7 motherboard. I couldn't afford to build one with the Pentium II back in those days. There was quite the price difference between the two companies back then. Of course I knew it wasn't as fast as Intel's offerings, but it gave me like 80% of the performance for 50-60% of the price.

Looking back, I always built AMD systems up until around 2011/2012. They just weren't competitive for many years with Intel after Sandy Bridge was released. But they're back on track now, and if I were building a PC today, I'd likely go with the Ryzen 1700 or 1700X on sale (I saw the 1700X on sale for $270 in the deal sub-forum earlier).
Wither on not I go with AMD or Intel the next I build a new rig is going to depend on Linux support as I don't do Windows. At the moment Intel is well supported in Linux, AMD not so much although they are getting there.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
Sorry it wasn't my intention to offend or have anyone think I was imply CPU companies were kidnapping children as I never linked the two together in the story. It was an attempt at describing how I felt about being ignorant of the economics situations of the desktop market for most of my life. Nevertheless, if you were offended, irritated, or hurt by the story I made up I'm sorry.

No, I wasn't offended or hurt. What happened to me was almost 36 years ago, so it's not a fresh wound.

I just can tell you are passionate about Intel's business practices, and I just thought your comparisons were getting a little, let's say, over-the-top. Nothing wrong with passionate debate, but it has to stay focused, or the next thing we know someone would be saying Intel helped Oswalt shoot Kennedy. ;)
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Stop trying to use a bad bait and switch($1,500 60" or bigger 4K TV??? rip off!) to distract from the topic by trying to use my inference of economics laws, and how they have driven consumer electronics(TVs). There is no doubt in my mind that a feature rich Smart Ultra HD 4K TV, made by arguably the best TV manufacturer in the world, is orders of magnitudes better, less weighing, more energy efficient, and cheaper than the heavy 150lb, dumb, piece of crap 60HZ stutter machine you bought 10 years ago!
Samsung - 55" Class (54.6" Diag.) - LED - 2160p - Smart - 4K Ultra HD TV $499.99
Product Weight With Stand
36.4 pounds

This is the same problem that many other commenters have expressed. An augmented view devoid of reality dictated by a monopoly market. You can see the timeline of corruption that started with Intel's creation of AMD on youtube AdoredTV "Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology." In the video he sets a timeline of showing how intel created a monopoly, and through anti-competitive practices maintained it. At one point AMD had the highest performing processor, and could not give 1 million of them away to Dell for free. Laws of economics do not care what market they are being applied too, which is the basis for my argument "Why are desktop CPUs so slow at improving?"

LOL my TV isn't anywhere close to 150lbs, the picture quality is actually decent for its age, it works as my bedroom TV now and no it doesn't stutter, but thanks for the laugh. I'm not sure how 'dumb' it is, I use it as a TV, so it does its job :) FWIW I was using AUD, probably should have mentioned that, its approx $1000 USD, and as I said, 60 inch+, not 55"... I see TVs today and no it's not orders of magnitudes better. As I said already, contrast and colours are better, but its an evolutionary improvement. So is 4K over 1080P, at normal viewing distances it is a bit sharper, but not nearly as much as TV companies would like you to believe. Maybe if you sit a few feet away from a TV...

Tell me exactly how CPUs would be significantly better today if we had, say, an extra competitor or two thrown in the mix? Would we suddenly be running 10GHz CPUs? I don't think so. Moar cores? How many do you want? Threadripper is a pretty good deal already.

I think AMD is doing well at keeping Intel on their toes, especially after Ryzen. We did get a few years of relative stagnation during the Bulldozer years due to lack of competition from AMD, that is where an extra competitor may have helped, but as I said, CPU technology is at a mature stage where we have stopped seeing the 2x increases in performance every generation. We haven't seen that since the GHz wars ended, to be frank, so that's nearly 15 years ago. Nowadays its all about cores, but software still has to catch up to get maximum performance from all those cores.

Don't let your hatred of Intel cloud your judgement on reality. I'm sorry but AdoredTV is a glorified AMD fanboy channel, I have better things to do with my time than sit through his rants. Besides, I think I get the picture just from your comments alone, no need to get another serving from another Intel hater ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
LOL my TV isn't anywhere close to 150lbs, the picture quality is actually decent for its age, it works as my bedroom TV now and no it doesn't stutter, but thanks for the laugh. I'm not sure how 'dumb' it is, I use it as a TV, so it does its job :)

Tell me exactly how CPUs would be significantly better today if we had, say, an extra competitor or two thrown in the mix? Would we suddenly be running 10GHz CPUs? I don't think so. Moar cores? How many do you want? Threadripper is a pretty good deal already.

Don't let your hatred of Intel cloud your judgement on reality. I'm sorry but AdoredTV is a glorified AMD fanboy channel, I have better things to do with my time than sit through his rants. Besides, I think I get the picture just from your comments alone, no need to get another serving from another Intel hater ;)

Tell me exactly how CPUs would be significantly better today
We will never know the difference 8 more competitor would have done for the field of 086 computing. This is an intangible loss when Intel destroyed it's only competition. There is no way of quantifying the potential the industry could have achieved if AMD with its processor out performing Intel's processor by as much as 50% would have allowed to be distributed. Most assuredly AMD would have taken over the market. And there would have be at least a 2 player technology race. Since computer technology is linked to everything from your gaming consoles to satellites to medicine there is no telling what price humanity has paid for their greed. That's why I compare it to other consumer electronics products with ~10+ manufacturers. Where you can see multiple aggressive competitive manufacturers pushing innovation while drastically reducing price.


Don't let your hatred of Intel cloud your judgement on reality.
The reality is that Intel has been and still is a monopoly. I don't hate Intel. You can't hate a corporation that's very nature is to make profit. I can hate the anti-competitive practices they have unlawfully committed to create and maintain a monopoly at the expense of the advancement in technology and consumers. I can hate they I have been duped by their marketing department. Clearly better legislation is needed, but rich corporations own the world.

AdoredTV is a glorified AMD fanboy channel
I don't know why you say that? He is talking about facts, and shows you where he found the information as he tells you these facts.
Incase you have never read it here is a link to the settlement agreement from The Federal Trade Commission. That's like calling a historian a fanboy for telling history.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel
Provisions are Designed to Foster Competition in the Computer Chip Business
FOR RELEASE
August 4, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel’s alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.

“This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries,” said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel’s anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products.”

The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel’s disclosures related to its compiler – a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel’s CPU for the next six years.

The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals’ access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers’ central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the “brains” of a computer. The action also challenged Intel’s conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.

The FTC alleged that Intel’s anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:

  • conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
  • retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.
In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:

  • modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
  • offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
  • maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and
  • disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.
The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on:
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
lol during the bulldozer years? intel owned amd for much longer
I'm talking about the relative increases in CPU performance over the years, not how long Intel 'owned' AMD. I'm aware AMD wasn't truly competitive since Core 2 launched, but Bulldozer made things a lot worse for them.

Between 2007 (first Core 2 Quad) to 2011 (Sandy Bridge) we still saw relatively big increases per generation. Since then, it has stagnated somewhat, performance/watt is still improving at a good rate but absolute performance was not. That was, until AMD woke up from its slumber and released Ryzen. Now we have Coffee Lake as a response.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
We will never know the difference 8 more competitor would have done for the field of 086 computing. This is an intangible loss when Intel destroyed it's only competition. There is no way of quantifying the potential the industry could have achieved if AMD with its processor out performing Intel's processor by as much as 50% would have allowed to be distributed. Most assuredly AMD would have taken over the market. And there would have be at least a 2 player technology race. Since computer technology is linked to everything from your gaming consoles to satellites to medicine there is no telling what price humanity has paid for their greed. That's why I compare it to other consumer electronics products with ~10+ manufacturers. Where you can see multiple aggressive competitive manufacturers pushing innovation while drastically reducing price.


The reality is that Intel has been and still is a monopoly. I don't hate Intel. You can't hate a corporation that's very nature is to make profit. I can hate the anti-competitive practices they have unlawfully committed to create and maintain a monopoly at the expense of the advancement in technology and consumers. I can hate they I have been duped by their marketing department. Clearly better legislation is needed, but rich corporations own the world.


I don't know why you say that? He is talking about facts, and shows you where he found the information as he tells you these facts.
Incase you have never read it here is a link to the settlement agreement from The Federal Trade Commission. That's like calling a historian a fanboy for telling history.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel

Provisions are Designed to Foster Competition in the Computer Chip Business
FOR RELEASE
August 4, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel’s alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.

“This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries,” said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel’s anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products.”

The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel’s disclosures related to its compiler – a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel’s CPU for the next six years.

The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals’ access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers’ central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the “brains” of a computer. The action also challenged Intel’s conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.

The FTC alleged that Intel’s anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:


    • conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
    • retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.
In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:




    • modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
    • offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
    • maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and
    • disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.
The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on:

I don't think the CPU market can sustain 10 companies, and if we did, I'm sure the uncompetitive ones will fall away quickly and become irrelevant/bought out like what happened in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_manufacturers

I would welcome an additional player or 2, but alas, we only have AMD (sorry VIA) and as I said earlier I think they are actually doing a pretty fine job of keeping Intel on their toes these days. I just don't think more companies (and smaller ones than AMD most likely, so with limited funds for R&D) would be able to solve the fundamental issues and physical limits of silicon based semiconductors.

As for AdoredTV, I've seen enough of Jim to be able to make my own judgement. He has a clear AMD bias, and if you can't see that... well, based on your posts in this thread, of course you can't see that ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
I don't think the CPU market can sustain 10 companies, and if we did, I'm sure the uncompetitive ones will fall away quickly and become irrelevant/bought out like what happened in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_manufacturers

I would welcome an additional player or 2, but alas, we only have AMD (sorry VIA) and as I said earlier I think they are actually doing a pretty fine job of keeping Intel on their toes these days. I just don't think more companies (and smaller ones than AMD most likely, so with limited funds for R&D) would be able to solve the fundamental issues and physical limits of silicon based semiconductors.

As for AdoredTV, I've seen enough of Jim to be able to make my own judgement. He has a clear AMD bias, and if you can't see that... well, based on your posts in this thread, of course you can't see that;)

I just don't think more companies (and smaller ones than AMD most likely, so with limited funds for R&D) would be able to solve the fundamental issues and physical limits of silicon based semiconductors.

It's an easy answer when you look at what competition does. You don't have to think about it. You're trying to go back and justify or reason out possibilities on theoreticals is where you go wrong. Economics will rule the markets like it does for every market. Maybe I need to relate the information in a more understandable way. You can look at the past year and see what 1 aggressive competitor has done in ~9 months time. Just build on that principle go back to 1983, and add 8 more Intel's, and tell me computer technology would not have increased more significantly than it has. Who says it has to be silicon based? It could have split into another direction or several directions or even not 086.

As for AdoredTV, I've seen enough of Jim to be able to make my own judgement. He has a clear AMD bias, and if you can't see that... well, based on your posts in this thread, of course you can't see that;)

Well, the fact that you say that reveals your bias. You have been trying to make excuses and apologize for the lack to technological advancement in Intel's favor.
 

Thunder 57

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2007
4,065
6,794
136
We will never know the difference 8 more competitor would have done for the field of 086 computing. This is an intangible loss when Intel destroyed it's only competition. There is no way of quantifying the potential the industry could have achieved if AMD with its processor out performing Intel's processor by as much as 50% would have allowed to be distributed. Most assuredly AMD would have taken over the market. And there would have be at least a 2 player technology race. Since computer technology is linked to everything from your gaming consoles to satellites to medicine there is no telling what price humanity has paid for their greed. That's why I compare it to other consumer electronics products with ~10+ manufacturers. Where you can see multiple aggressive competitive manufacturers pushing innovation while drastically reducing price.


The reality is that Intel has been and still is a monopoly. I don't hate Intel. You can't hate a corporation that's very nature is to make profit. I can hate the anti-competitive practices they have unlawfully committed to create and maintain a monopoly at the expense of the advancement in technology and consumers. I can hate they I have been duped by their marketing department. Clearly better legislation is needed, but rich corporations own the world.


I don't know why you say that? He is talking about facts, and shows you where he found the information as he tells you these facts.
Incase you have never read it here is a link to the settlement agreement from The Federal Trade Commission. That's like calling a historian a fanboy for telling history.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel

Provisions are Designed to Foster Competition in the Computer Chip Business
FOR RELEASE
August 4, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel’s alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.

“This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries,” said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel’s anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products.”

The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel’s disclosures related to its compiler – a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel’s CPU for the next six years.

The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals’ access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers’ central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the “brains” of a computer. The action also challenged Intel’s conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.

The FTC alleged that Intel’s anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:


    • conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
    • retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.
In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:




    • modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
    • offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
    • maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and
    • disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.
The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on:

AMD would not have taken over the market. They did not have a fab capacity to do so. "I don't hate Intel"; Yes, you do. And if you have been duped by marketing you have no one to blame but yourself. "Rich corporations own the world"; Would you keep your politics out of this? That's pure nonsense.

Yes, Intel did terrible things and honestly got off with just a slap on the wrist. They should have been hit much harder. Also, if you are going to talk about facts, AMD tried to give free CPU's to HP, not Dell.

I'm talking about the relative increases in CPU performance over the years, not how long Intel 'owned' AMD. I'm aware AMD wasn't truly competitive since Core 2 launched, but Bulldozer made things a lot worse for them.

Between 2007 (first Core 2 Quad) to 2011 (Sandy Bridge) we still saw relatively big increases per generation. Since then, it has stagnated somewhat, performance/watt is still improving at a good rate but absolute performance was not. That was, until AMD woke up from its slumber and released Ryzen. Now we have Coffee Lake as a response.

Not true. K10 did compete with Core 2. Anandtech even has a review on the Phenom II 940 called "A true return to competition".
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
It's an easy answer when you look at what competition does. You don't have to think about it. You're trying to go back and justify or reason out possibilities on theoreticals is where you go wrong. Economics will rule the markets like it does for every market. Maybe I need to relate the information in a more understandable way. You can look at the past year and see what 1 aggressive competitor has done in ~9 months time. Just build on that principle go back to 1983, and add 8 more Intel's, and tell me computer technology would not have increased more significantly than it has. Who says it has to be silicon based? It could have split into another direction or several directions or even not 086.

Well, the fact that you say that reveals your bias. You have been trying to make excuses and apologize for the lack to technological advancement in Intel's favor.

I maintain my belief that the CPU industry cannot realistically sustain 10 companies and having them all be profitable - inevitably the less comptetitive companies will fade away or be bought out. Its a fantasy world of yours where you think we can have another 8 AMDs all competing against each other on an even keel.

I'm all for competition, I'm just not convinced your model of competition has any relevance to the real world, considering the state of semiconductor technology we are at today.

Don't forget Intel is also competing against itself - if it doesn't innovate, no one wants to upgrade. Its why I'm still running a 2600K today, as up until the 8700K there was no reason for me to upgrade at all. So Intel lost my upgrade dollars the past few years. I'm hardly defending them, just saying that we are nearing the limits of silicon and I doubt throwing many more companies into the mix will solve that physical limitation.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Not true. K10 did compete with Core 2. Anandtech even has a review on the Phenom II 940 called "A true return to competition".

I actually just quickly looked at that review again. By 2009 Core 2 was ageing and Intel had Nehalem out already. If you actually look at the benchmarks, Phenom II was still slower than C2Q overall and gets destroyed by the Nehalem i7s. I don't see that as AMD being competitive. AMD needed Phenom II in 2007, not 2009.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/12
17962.png
 
Last edited:

Thunder 57

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2007
4,065
6,794
136
I actually just quickly looked at that review again. By 2009 Core 2 was ageing and Intel had Nehalem out already. If you actually look at the benchmarks, Phenom II was still slower than C2Q overall and gets destroyed by the Nehalem i7s. I don't see that as AMD being competitive. AMD needed Phenom II in 2007, not 2009.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/12
17962.png

Nehalem was also super expensive. It competed well with Core 2 Duo/Quad.
 

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
AMD would not have taken over the market. They did not have a fab capacity to do so. "I don't hate Intel"; Yes, you do. And if you have been duped by marketing you have no one to blame but yourself. "Rich corporations own the world"; Would you keep your politics out of this? That's pure nonsense.

Yes, Intel did terrible things and honestly got off with just a slap on the wrist. They should have been hit much harder. Also, if you are going to talk about facts, AMD tried to give free CPU's to HP, not Dell.

AMD would not have taken over the market. They did not have a fab capacity to do so.
Your opinion. That and a coupon for a free coke will get me a free coke. My opinion yes they would. Just as valid!

"I don't hate Intel"; Yes, you do.
Again another free coke! No, and don't pretend to speak for me.

And if you have been duped by marketing you have no one to blame but yourself.
Scroll up you stating the obvious here captain! I've already made statements to this effect.

"Rich corporations own the world"; Would you keep your politics out of this? That's pure nonsense.
Would you keep your politics out of this! Because everything your saying is your opinion, and in mine, it's pure nonsense!

Yes, Intel did terrible things and honestly got off with just a slap on the wrist. They should have been hit much harder.
This is the first thing you said dealing with the topic! bravo! In future posts instead of making a bunch of opinions about me can you stick to the topic "Why are desktop CPUs so slow at improving?"

Also, if you are going to talk about facts, AMD tried to give free CPU's to HP, not Dell.
A slight error on my part HP was so dependant on Intel rebates they couldn't afford to take them, but Dell was complicit in Intel's anti-competitive activities as well. From 2001-2006 Intel paid Dell 6 billion not to ship any computers powered by AMD.

Perhaps CNET is bi partisan enough for everyone?

https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-and-amd-a-long-history-in-court/

TECH INDUSTRY
Intel and AMD: A long history in court

Monday's suit doesn't mark the first time AMD has accused Intel of antitrust violations. We look back at the companies' legal tangles.
BY MICHAEL SINGER
JULY 8, 2005 6:00 AM PDT


Intel and Advanced Micro Devices' long history of competing for microprocessor dominance has landed them in court before.

In the latest salvo, AMD this week filed an antitrust suit in U.S. District Court in Delaware. Here are some key moments in the companies' entwined histories:

1968--Intel is founded by Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore.

1969--AMD is founded by Jerry Sanders along with a team of former Fairchild Semiconductor employees.

Early 1980s--IBM chooses Intel's so-called x86 chip architecture and the DOS software operating system built by Microsoft. To avoid overdependence on Intel as its sole source of chips, IBM demands that Intel finds it a second supplier.

1982--Intel and AMD sign a technology exchange agreement making AMD a second supplier. The deal gives AMD access to Intel's so-called second-generation "286" chip technology.

1984--Intel seeks to go it alone with its third-generation "386" chips using tactics that AMD asserts were part of a "secret plan" to create a PC chip monopoly.

1987--AMD files legal papers to settle the 386 chip dispute.

1991--AMD files an antitrust complaint in Northern California claiming that Intel engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.

1992--A court rules against Intel and awards AMD $10 million plus a royalty-free license to any Intel patents used in AMD's own 386-style processor.

1995--AMD settles all outstanding legal disputes with Intel in a deal that gives AMD a shared interest in the x86 chip design, which remains to this day the basic architecture of chips used to make personal computers.

1999--Required by the 1995 agreement to develop its own way of implementing x86 designs, AMD creates its own version of the x86, the Athlon chip.

2000--AMD complains to the European Commission that Intel is violating European anti-competition laws through "abusive" marketing programs. AMD uses legal means to try to get access to documents produced in another Intel antitrust case, this one filed by Intergraph. The Intergraph case is eventually settled.

2003--AMD's big technology breakthrough comes when it introduces a 64-bit version of its x86 chips designed to run on Windows, beating Intel, which for the first time has to chase AMD to develop equivalent technology. AMD introduces its Opteron line of chips for powerful computer server machines and its Athlon line for desktops and mobile computers.

2004--Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) raids Intel offices in Japan searching for documents. Intel cooperates with the investigation but does not agree with the outcome. JFTC officials find that Intel's Japan unit stifled competition by offering rebates to five Japanese PC makers--Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, Sony and Toshiba--which agreed not to buy or to limit their purchases of chips made by AMD and Transmeta.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Nehalem was also super expensive. It competed well with Core 2 Duo/Quad.
The i7 920 was actually competitively priced, but the platform cost was significantly higher for Nehalem. Still, it was a big leap over Core 2 and an even bigger leap over Phenom II.

Anandtech breaks down the IPC and cost of ownership here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/4

Core 2 was significantly faster in IPC, and Nehalem was just in a league of its own. AMD competed on price, as it always did. Maybe our definition of 'competitive' differs, but I don't consider 25 - 60% IPC deficits to Nehalem, as shown by Anandtech, to be competitive.
 

goldstone77

Senior member
Dec 12, 2017
217
93
61
I maintain my belief that the CPU industry cannot realistically sustain 10 companies and having them all be profitable - inevitably the less comptetitive companies will fade away or be bought out. Its a fantasy world of yours where you think we can have another 8 AMDs all competing against each other on an even keel.

I'm all for competition, I'm just not convinced your model of competition has any relevance to the real world, considering the state of semiconductor technology we are at today.

Don't forget Intel is also competing against itself - if it doesn't innovate, no one wants to upgrade. Its why I'm still running a 2600K today, as up until the 8700K there was no reason for me to upgrade at all. So Intel lost my upgrade dollars the past few years. I'm hardly defending them, just saying that we are nearing the limits of silicon and I doubt throwing many more companies into the mix will solve that physical limitation.

Don't forget Intel is also competing against itself - if it doesn't innovate, no one wants to upgrade.

If this was only true than we wouldn't have rules against having a monopoly. The sad truth is if there is only 1 manufacturer everyone has to go to them to buy their CPUs, and they can charge any price they want for these CPUs. I posted a picture and link to http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/financials?query=income-statement showing year after year they continue to show growth, and are more profitable. Their gross profits are over 50% year over year! 9 months ago their i7-6950 10 core was selling for ~$1800. Now, the 7900X is selling for $959 a cost reduction of almost 50%! If that isn't a big wakeup call I don't know what is... But like most people they think everything is doing just fine... And it comes from a lack of understanding in fundamental economics that people make these statements. What is more amazing is how people are so quick to defend to the point of apologizing for these high prices, lack of innovation, and are perfectly content with how things are doing. Like someone just slapped their daddy in the face.
 
Last edited:

Burpo

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2013
4,223
473
126
People aren't quick to defend intel, more likely people are sick of your bitter, short sighted synopsis. With your opinionated, over the top posts and rhetoric (Like someone just slapped their daddy in the face), it seems that your "augmented view, devoid of reality" is likely augmented by some form of prescription drugs?
Well, no matter.. With 58 posts (and not many helpful), this is a good time to use the forums ignore feature. :cool: Good luck with that bitterness.. Let it go, or let it consume you..
 
Last edited:

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
2003--AMD's big technology breakthrough comes when it introduces a 64-bit version of its x86 chips designed to run on Windows, beating Intel, which for the first time has to chase AMD to develop equivalent technology. AMD introduces its Opteron line of chips for powerful computer server machines and its Athlon line for desktops and mobile computers.
Intel released a true 64bit cpu in 2001!
Intel tried to innovate Well Whadya Know?!
Yeah it sucked because it was slow and needed completely new software but it was innovation and they got kicked in the face for trying to innovate.
On the other hand AMD just went with the cheapest and simplest solution of just adding extensions to fool the cpu into thinking that it is 64bit, like a year or two later...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Itanium_(Merced):_2001