Will there be faster (>10% performance) processors within 3 years?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Why are people frustrated? What can't an i7, i5, or even any i3 or AMD FX cpu do on their computer that today's processors don't accomplish? I can answer that- nothing.
lol your comment is laughable as you seem to forget there are many enthusiasts out there. there are plenty of games that are completely cpu limited in spots meaning zero chance of maintaining 120 or 144 fps no matter how much gpu power you have. heck some games take the very fastest cpus out there just to stay above 60 fps. plus there are plenty of other non gaming situations where people want faster cpus. but hey if you dont need anything faster then I guess no one else does. :rolleyes:
 

Kallogan

Senior member
Aug 2, 2010
340
5
76
powerfull enough era

bad days for the 0,1% of compulsive enthousiast buyers who like to compare their big benchs
 

rgallant

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2007
1,361
11
81
cpu's are fine my 3770k with pci-3 and running at low temps @4.6 and can run.4.8 lowish volts when needed is not the issue ,it's the chip set z77
only 2 6gb sata intel ports + 2 x 3gb sata intel ports
-have a 840 pro 256gb [os] that I have to delete 40-50 gb games to make room for new ones lol
looking at a second [$170] for R0 but my back up drive is a 750 gb samsung evo is in the second 6 gb port lol first world problem I know but it is what it is.

can't decide to degrade the 750gb to sata 2 and retirer one of the intel 120gb dump drives or just buy a 850 pro 512gb and R0 latter if needed.

only saying this because cpu up grades bring better chip sets
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I wouldn't expect any big jumps in basic cpu functionality. Instead hopefully we will see more of what we see with AMD HSA. Using a powerful CPU core to do tasks can't be parallel with the GPU being used for parallel tasks.
 

dealcorn

Senior member
May 28, 2011
247
4
76
At IDF Intel touted benefits of moving memory and CPU closer together. Has anyone speculated whether better memory solutions might deliver a >10% benefit to Intel's big core solutions?
 

III-V

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
678
1
41
At IDF Intel touted benefits of moving memory and CPU closer together. Has anyone speculated whether better memory solutions might deliver a >10% benefit to Intel's big core solutions?
Oh, definitely. Memory is the biggest thing holding back today's computers, and I don't mean that sarcastically. Thankfully, progress is being made:

The prototype dynamic random access memory (DRAM) array can achieve four times lower latency at 25 times less energy than the standard double data rate synchronous (DDR) DRAM devices that are generally used in computers, according to Intel Labs.
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/ast/201411180024.aspx

Stacked memory should help as well.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,468
7,872
136
Well, taking a look at Wetiken's sig:

“That still is 3 and a half years that we have built and experience and also shipping. I'm not going to tell you what the next innovations are, but our roadmap is full, because to continue to improve transistors, you have to make substantial improvements. And we plan to do that, while other people are working on perfecting their FinFET devices, and we're gonna be moving on to looking at what comes next.” --William Holt, Intel

One can hold out for a break-through that some post -FinFET device might offer better frequency scaling. It seems like every 'magic' material that comes along with so much promise, like vertically stacked graphene layers, which could provided huge boosts in electron mobility, come with their own set manufacturability problems that might just rule them out for many years to come.

It looks like thermals and QM effects are likely to make it even harder to maintain, never mind increase, clock speeds. Intel has been extremely creative so far - but I expect for cost reasons, they won't push their tech any faster than they need to, which is to say - 5-10% per generation.

The new client server model, cloud computing, etc., is driven my mobile clients and servers (handling both storage and remote compute duties) and wireless bandwidth to create a new distributed computing model compared to the standard Server->LAN->PC basic tiered system. This is what is increasing driving CPU/SoC requirements - and it changes the ball game.

The next big break through in total throughput may just have to wait for quantum computers - but that's a very different story which will transform the computing ecosystem (hardware, interfaces and, at the very least, hardware abstraction layers because the software ecosystem will likely lag the hardware developments).
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,717
9,603
136
We were even more spoiled in the nineties. And we've been spoiled ever until ~2008 or so. But now the fun is over. And no, I'm not bitter. ;)

2008? I'd say it was when Sandy Bridge hit the mainstream, which according to Wikipedia was Jan 2011. I remember seeing the benchmarks and thinking "Jesus H Christ!".

http://techreport.com/review/20188/intel-sandy-bridge-core-processors/6
It looks to me like the SB generation had enough single-threaded punch to allow an SB i3 to give many high-end processors a run for their money. Also, the power efficiency of that generation compared to its competition at the time was extraordinary.

Even its iGPU seemed to put its competition to shame.
 
Last edited:

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,899
193
106
Intel has been extremely creative so far - but I expect for cost reasons, they won't push their tech any faster than they need to, which is to say - 5-10% per generation.
Intel's Diane Bryant promises a >20% performance gain with every generation. Intel's William Holt promises a 1.6x (60%) improvement in efficiency every generation. Intel's Kirk Skaugen has given us the last architectural generations, including Skylake, a 2X improvement in FLOPS throughput.

The next big break through in total throughput may just have to wait for quantum computers - but that's a very different story which will transform the computing ecosystem (hardware, interfaces and, at the very least, hardware abstraction layers because the software ecosystem will likely lag the hardware developments).
There are of course major advances being made, but I'm skeptical about consumer quantum computers because so far you need things like superconductors which mean you have to be close to zero degrees. I don't see that being scaled down to consumer devices. It's like the increase in core in Xeon SKUs for server; consumer CPUs don't benefit nearly as much from many cores so they don't follow that same path.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
There are of course major advances being made, but I'm skeptical about consumer quantum computers because so far you need things like superconductors which mean you have to be close to zero degrees. I don't see that being scaled down to consumer devices. It's like the increase in core in Xeon SKUs for server; consumer CPUs don't benefit nearly as much from many cores so they don't follow that same path.

Seems they are stuck at that 4GHZ or so barrier making more cores not faster cores their solution for performance increases. I would not be surprised to see 32 core or 64 core or more on the desktop provided desktop software can take advantage of it. The software side seems to be lagging way behind in that respect already however.
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,135
832
136
There are architectures in the works that will come with 200% increases in performance.

The clock speed doesn't matter as we are talking about IPC and EPI.

There will be designs that can exploit 1T IPC by running it across multiple core/threads/clusters. This leads to a rather large boost in performance with minimal increase in complexity.

So you start off referring to "performance", then when called on your nonsense, hide behind IPC. :rolleyes:

The reason no one wanted to do this before now is egos.
Utter nonsense.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,221
12,861
136
powerfull enough era

bad days for the 0,1% of compulsive enthousiast buyers who like to compare their big benchs

Dont think so .. with machine intelligence rising, smart devices, VR and augmented reality the need for compute power will skyrocket in coming years. That is just my crystall ball thou' but cant see it happening any other way.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,468
7,872
136
Intel's Diane Bryant promises a >20% performance gain with every generation. Intel's William Holt promises a 1.6x (60%) improvement in efficiency every generation. Intel's Kirk Skaugen has given us the last architectural generations, including Skylake, a 2X improvement in FLOPS throughput.

I'll take a look a Ms. Bryan's presentation to see how she is supporting the 20% claim. Holt has to be claiming this per node (as opposed to per CPU generation). Something like a 2x FLOPS improvement is very impressive, but does't apply improvements in general computing.

Mind you, I would be happy to be wrong on what I expect performance growth per generation to be.

I'll get back to quantum computing later, but not all QC models require ultra low temps.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
446
136
lol your comment is laughable as you seem to forget there are many enthusiasts out there. there are plenty of games that are completely cpu limited in spots meaning zero chance of maintaining 120 or 144 fps no matter how much gpu power you have. heck some games take the very fastest cpus out there just to stay above 60 fps. plus there are plenty of other non gaming situations where people want faster cpus. but hey if you dont need anything faster then I guess no one else does. :rolleyes:

Double post.
 
Last edited:

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
446
136
lol your comment is laughable as you seem to forget there are many enthusiasts out there. there are plenty of games that are completely cpu limited in spots meaning zero chance of maintaining 120 or 144 fps no matter how much gpu power you have. heck some games take the very fastest cpus out there just to stay above 60 fps. plus there are plenty of other non gaming situations where people want faster cpus. but hey if you dont need anything faster then I guess no one else does. :rolleyes:

Many enthusiasts? The number is extremely negligible. It is a rounding error. That is how small a niche "enthusiast" are. I am an enthusiast. I also am a realist. The cpu's of today are totally overkill. Do you think Intel or any company for that matter are interested in what amounts to .0000001% of the computer users on this planet like you claim to be? They are going to pour billions into making cpu's that there are virtually no market for? That is not how any successful business runs.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
He is wrong. Enthusiasts make up about .000001% Probably way less than that. Retail cpu's are a literal drop in the bucket. If that.

Of the ~300 million PCs sold each year, 0.000001% would imply that there are about 3 enthusiasts worldwide.

I somehow doubt this number.
 

III-V

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
678
1
41
Of the ~300 million PCs sold each year, 0.000001% would imply that there are about 3 enthusiasts worldwide.

I somehow doubt this number.
Don't you know? There are only three enthusiasts: an Intel fanboy controlling thousands of pro-Intel accounts, an AMD fanboy controlling thousands of pro-AMD accounts, and Idontcare.