I am not sure how the situation is today and how fast cpus are gaining power today.. When you read about improvememts in new intel architestures you can read aboul silly values of about 5% each new generation, If so one coud suspect that speed of cpus is now growing silly slow say 5% a year or something - but still I am not sure if it is really such slow (?) Could anybody answer how buch faster will we have a home pc 5 yerars from above - only twice faster? - maybe less? more? (I am not asking about gpu just cpu program speed) What is an amount of execution speed difference between the average pc model in the shop and say more expensive models from the shop, are the expensive models 300% faster or maybe just 30% faster ? Is there some reliable benchmark showing the differences?

I could say that when giving values it seem to me that people are overoptymistic for evemple i was doing some

test of some mine raytracing code running on 2003 or 2004 pentium 4 machine and strong 2012 machines (one core code)- it was about 5 times faster - this is noticable but this

is almost 10 years gap, now I think it can maybe grow noticably slower

Moores law is about transistor density, not computing power -- that the number of transistors you can cram into a particular area seems to double every 2 years.

It's slowing down, and for the past 5 years or so, there's been more of a focus on using those extra transistors to create more cores, rather than using them to speed up a single core.

If you're writing single-threaded code now, it will only be a few % faster in 5 years. Buf if you're writing code right now for a 4-core CPU, but written in a way where it can scale up to a 32-core CPU, then maybe in 5 years you'll be able to run that code 700% faster...

i do not think so (too)

I remember in 2007 or 2008 there were 4 core processors in the shops (as a news maybe but not to expensive) and today five years later I got still 4 cores in shops - not too much growing up, So sadly i doubt if in 2018 wi willl have 32 core pcs

at home - if the core will be 30% faster and there would be 8 cores instead the four it is slow progress

IMO the cores could be revritten - it is very bad for example that there is no hardvare command for cross and dot products vector length normalisation etc etc - this should be reasonable

easy way of improving throughtput of some important algorithms

Two parts.

The first part is the nature of Moore's law. Moore was writing an article about the growth rate of transistor counts. His now-famous article ends with this conclusion: The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase.

That observation is still holding true over forty years later. Many people mischaracterize the quote, assigning it to transistor density, processing power per dollar, and other variants, some of which are valid and others are not. Note that Moore's law, the one he actually wrote, can continue to be true long after we reach the maximum performance of integrated circuits; it can apply just as readily to any technology, such as quantum computers, DNA-based computing, or whatever else people dream of.

The second part is about programmers. Herb Sutter wrote about this about a decade ago, and it was a well-established concern even back then.

Summarizing his article: In the past we programmers could see the benefits of Moore's law without any effort. It was a free lunch. Moore's law is still holding true but in order for programmers to access those gains we must make some fundamental changes to reap the rewards, most notably toward thinking in terms of concurrent rather than sequential algorithms.

I remember in 2007 or 2008 there were 4 core processors in the shops (as a news maybe but not to expensive) and today five years later I got still 4 cores in shops - not too much growing up, So sadly i doubt if in 2018 wi willl have 32 core pcs
at home - if the core will be 30% faster and there would be 8 cores instead the four it is slow progress

IMO the cores could be revritten - it is very bad for example that there is no hardvare command for cross and dot products vector length normalisation etc etc - this should be reasonable easy way of improving throughtput of some important algorithms

You are taking too narrow a view of processors:
- CPU manufacturers have been largely focussed on mobile for the last few years, and there have been huge gains in both performance and power efficiency in the mobile sector.
- GPU manufacturers have been pushing massive increases in the number of parallel cores and, as you suggest, highly specialised instructions sets to accelerate domain-specific tasks.

Probably this is true, but indeed personally I am not much interested in both mobile and gpu - i am focused on desktops cpu and still am hungry for pure MIPS and FLOPS the slowdown of it worries me (If more power to core is hard to obtain more cores is okay but sadly as i said it doeas not grow even one additional core a year but much slower too)

[or it looks like that I am not quite sure if this view and estimation of the present and future is about to be correct,

but as far as i know it looks like that]

Probably this is true, but indeed personally I am not much interested in both mobile and gpu - i am focused on desktops cpu and still am hungry for pure MIPS and FLOPS the slowdown of it worries me

That is what CUDA / OpenCL / DirectCompute are designed to solve. Toolkits like OpenCL let you write code which can execute across CPU and/or GPU cores as available.

Even integrated GPUs are faster than most general-purpose CPUs for highly-parallel tasks, and dedicate GPUs are orders of magnitude more powerful.

I remember in 2007 or 2008 there were 4 core processors in the shops (as a news maybe but not to expensive) and today five years later I got still 4 cores in shops - not too much growing up, So sadly i doubt if in 2018 wi willl have 32 core pcs

I missed this the first time round. While 4-8 cores is still the norm for desktop computers, higher core machines certainly exist...

If you have the cash to burn, HP will sell you a 24-core workstation off-the-shelf (for a cool $10,000). And I'm pretty sure there are higher core counts (maybe even for less $$) if you look at server hardware.

Well, interesting.. As to OpenCl I know it just slightly - it seem to be a way to go eventually but read somewhere that it is not too much well designed or something like that (it was probably a blog of man called aneru) But maybe it will mature one day. today, it seem to me that multicore coding is harder and more limited than one core and openCl coding yet more hard and yet more limited than multicore programming.

Is the power of OpenCl prosessing growing faster than the growth of the cpu/cores? I do not know..

As to HP 24 core workstation interesting - is this auch a 24-core stuff you could buy as a christmas gift to some maniacal player and coder who can run games on it or running 24-procesor windows code on it? If so I think indeed a thing may

be getting cheaper and go to the shops after some 5 years (but now it still does not look like that and it seem to me that

consumer computer is still 4 core)

These new quad-cores have used their smaller transistors to achieve better performance, with much higher clock speeds, more cache, better pathways to RAM, new instruction sets, 16-wide SIMD operations, added an integrated GPU, more complex pipelines, etc...

Well they do all that but when you measure such difference

in the procesing abilities of one core of quad core from 2007

and 2013 you after that can meybe observe 2x speedup

maybe less (I do not know how much exactly ) and it is maybe still getting slower - It seem to me that you maybe cant count on one core efficiency improvements (but as I said I am not quite sure - maybe should read some reallife benchmarks and it should show something)