Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
fir

slow speedup of cpu's ?

This topic is 2142 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

When I am reading some wiki pages about cpu's i found there some statements like Haswell is about 3% overall faster than Ivy bridge, ivy bridge is about 5% faster than sandy bridge, Sandy bridge is about 10% faster than previous

(or about that - maybe values are not so exact but this is about less than 10% power-up factor are talking about. Is that reality that in last say three of four years speedup of cpu's is so weak.. ? Could someone comment on this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Yes that has been a reality ever since intel and amd switch to producing multicore cpu's, when that happend we actaully saw a drop in processor speed back to the 2ghz mark.

Due to the fact that there are too many resistances and electircal leaks in CPUs, die shrinks no longer solve these issues without an extreme increase on power consumptions as well. This happend at the end of the P4 era, where above 3Ghz speeds where reachable but not withouth having the CPU drain 100-150 watts of power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I am reading some wiki pages about cpu's i found there some statements like Haswell is about 3% overall faster than Ivy bridge, ivy bridge is about 5% faster than sandy bridge, Sandy bridge is about 10% faster than previous

(or about that - maybe values are not so exact but this is about less than 10% power-up factor are talking about. Is that reality that in last say three of four years speedup of cpu's is so weak.. ? Could someone comment on this?

 

 a 3.5Ghz 4-core haswell i7 outperforms a 3.5Ghz 4-core ivy bridge i7 by roughly 3%

 

It is worth remembering that the Intel Pentium 4 was slower than the Intel Pentium 3 by the same metric.

 

Lower power consumption, lower temperature and smaller core size allows for CPUs with more cores (or more CPUs in a single machine if necessary) and that is where we will get most performance increases in the coming years.

Edited by SimonForsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPUs don't really compete on raw speed the last few years - with the rise of mobile, power efficiency is the new big thing.

 

Intel claims that Haswell is around 50% more power efficient than Ivy Bridge. If you are building laptops or mobile devices, 10% better battery life is way more valuable than an extra 10% processing power.

 

both are very important - raw speed is very important 

 

If there is such bad as this values mentioned say (because

maybe it is not such bad? I do not know) I didnt know about

that.- I thought that it may be better (not such bad)

 

Also amount of cores is not rising at great speed (four cores 

like today in shops I get 5 years ago at the same prize or close)

So it seems that we have a death of road of rising speed 

of home computers already? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CPUs don't really compete on raw speed the last few years - with the rise of mobile, power efficiency is the new big thing.

 

Intel claims that Haswell is around 50% more power efficient than Ivy Bridge. If you are building laptops or mobile devices, 10% better battery life is way more valuable than an extra 10% processing power.

 

both are very important - raw speed is very important 

 

If there is such bad as this values mentioned say (because

maybe it is not such bad? I do not know) I didnt know about

that.- I thought that it may be better (not such bad)

 

Also amount of cores is not rising at great speed (four cores 

like today in shops I get 5 years ago at the same prize or close)

So it seems that we have a death of road of rising speed 

of home computers already? 

 

 

it has kind-of been this way a long time...

 

remember the 90s? back then, computers got significantly faster very quickly.

 

then a wall was ran into, and this slowed way down, and a decade later the raw CPU clock-speeds are typically only around 3x faster, with other improvements due to other factors (micro-architecture, SIMD, ...), as well as the creation of multi-core chips, ...

 

but, as-is, it is diminishing returns.

 

 

luckily, there are options, just not really as much for linear execution speeds.

 

and, luckily things are getting better in other areas (like, we have a *lot* more RAM and HDD space than was feasible 10 or 15 years ago...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Intel claims that Haswell is around 50% more power efficient than Ivy Bridge. If you are building laptops or mobile devices, 10% better battery life is way more valuable than an extra 10% processing power.

both are very important - raw speed is very important

 

To PC enthusiasts building gaming machines with 2x Titan GPUs? Sure.

The rest of the universe, not so much. Mobile devices like the upper end smartphones and tablets are plenty powerful, but their battery life sucks. The current generation of consoles still render nice looking games, and they are 8 years behind the current generation of PCs. All that fancy cloud computing stuff? A lot of that doesn't even use the cutting edge of CPU technology. It turns out to be cheaper to add hundreds more low-power boxes, than it is to cool a room full of monster desktops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CPUs don't really compete on raw speed the last few years - with the rise of mobile, power efficiency is the new big thing.

 

Intel claims that Haswell is around 50% more power efficient than Ivy Bridge. If you are building laptops or mobile devices, 10% better battery life is way more valuable than an extra 10% processing power.

 

both are very important - raw speed is very important 

 

If there is such bad as this values mentioned say (because

maybe it is not such bad? I do not know) I didnt know about

that.- I thought that it may be better (not such bad)

 

Also amount of cores is not rising at great speed (four cores 

like today in shops I get 5 years ago at the same prize or close)

So it seems that we have a death of road of rising speed 

of home computers already? 

 

 

it has kind-of been this way a long time...

 

remember the 90s? back then, computers got significantly faster very quickly.

 

then a wall was ran into, and this slowed way down, and a decade later the raw CPU clock-speeds are typically only around 3x faster, with other improvements due to other factors (micro-architecture, SIMD, ...), as well as the creation of multi-core chips, ...

 

but, as-is, it is diminishing returns.

 

 

luckily, there are options, just not really as much for linear execution speeds.

 

and, luckily things are getting better in other areas (like, we have a *lot* more RAM and HDD space than was feasible 10 or 15 years ago...).

 

 

ye, at least amount of ram avaliable is really big (it is enough)

but depending of the code example i still find a lack of 

computation power and it seem that it raises now very low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Intel claims that Haswell is around 50% more power efficient than Ivy Bridge. If you are building laptops or mobile devices, 10% better battery life is way more valuable than an extra 10% processing power.

both are very important - raw speed is very important

 

To PC enthusiasts building gaming machines with 2x Titan GPUs? Sure.

The rest of the universe, not so much. Mobile devices like the upper end smartphones and tablets are plenty powerful, but their battery life sucks. The current generation of consoles still render nice looking games, and they are 8 years behind the current generation of PCs. All that fancy cloud computing stuff? A lot of that doesn't even use the cutting edge of CPU technology. It turns out to be cheaper to add hundreds more low-power boxes, than it is to cool a room full of monster desktops...

 

 

for coders - i would like for example raytracing (and more such type) doin 100 times faster - and it still will be not enough for me

 

(At least there is far more power than for example in amiga

days to play with but i would like to get more of it - it is not questionable that there is no 'enough' case here - and I always read 'its enough' posts (or 'no need to optymise code' with unpleasant attitude, - it is far not enough (in general))

Edited by fir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


for coders - i would like for example raytracing (and more such type) doin 100 times faster - and it still will be not enough for me

You are living in pipe-dream land. It's highly unlikely that general-purpose CPUs will be capable of that within our lifetimes.

 

Dedicated hardware is the only reason we can rasterize 3D graphics to the quality we currently can. Without that great big hulking GPU, you'd still be limited to a couple of thousand phong-shaded triangles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!