Analyst: "Glimmer" of Hope for PC Industry in 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
1,869
0
19,960
63
Anyone who though Win8 and "Ultrabooks" (as if laptops needed net ANOTHER name to confuse people) were either sorely deluded or shamefully uninformed. The biggest factor in global PC shipments is still the corporate upgrade cycle.
 
[citation][nom]EzioAs[/nom]If only ultrabooks could be cheaper. I loved the concept and features that they bring but it's still a bit too expensive[/citation]

Because there a premium product, you want better you pay for it.

Another aspect why (sadly) Apple dominates -- do you see a cheap rubish "low end" Apple product? NOPE
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
Sorry Intel/AMD/Nvidia/DRAM maker, I will continue to use my 4yrs old core 2 duo 3.2GHz/4GB + 9800GT PC for quite while. Please blame the software developer.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Sorry Intel/AMD/Nvidia/DRAM maker, I will continue to use my 4yrs old core 2 duo 3.2GHz/4GB + 9800GT PC for quite while. Please blame the software developer.[/citation]

+1 rubbish console ports and average crappy games that aren't demanding on cpu/video or any bleading edge latest hardware.

Game makers blame piracy, thats just bs.
 

the magpie

Honorable
Dec 26, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
The whole point is not that PCs are less sexy, it's that the PC, the desktop especially has matured as a platform. Like Tomfreak said, a 4+ year old PC can still perform marvelously almost everything you throw at it. The need to constantly upgrade has diminished significantly in the last 5 years or so. Therefore PC sales are starting to stabilize in accordance with the excellent capabilities of the platform. Read more on why the PC is here to stay at: http://saysthemagpie.com/the-desktop-pc-today-death-of-a-legend/
 

fuzzion

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2012
468
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]the magpie[/nom]The whole point is not that PCs are less sexy, it's that the PC, the desktop especially has matured as a platform. Like Tomfreak said, a 4+ year old PC can still perform marvelously almost everything you throw at it. The need to constantly upgrade has diminished significantly in the last 5 years or so. Therefore PC sales are starting to stabilize in accordance with the excellent capabilities of the platform. Read more on why the PC is here to stay at: http://saysthemagpie.com/the-deskt [...] -a-legend/[/citation]


You are actually right.

I remember geforce 1 than 2 than skipped to 5 than 9 than 460gtxsli and skipping 5xx 6xx and waiting for 760ti. The need to upgrade now parallels with the renewel of consoles. Games(2013) are just beginning to use 11dx

 

virtualban

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2007
1,232
0
19,280
0
Virtual Reality can be used for production, not just for games. A JohnyMnemonic interface for example. Not even need for gloves. Cameras can find the position of fingers at fractions of millimeter accuracy.
So, to use the talent of individuals, world, make this a current reality instead of future reality. New demand will come as a result.
 

Soda-88

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
1,086
0
19,460
76
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Because there a premium product, you want better you pay for it.Another aspect why (sadly) Apple dominates -- do you see a cheap rubish "low end" Apple product? NOPE[/citation]
Yeah, those Mac Pros with first gen Core i based Xeons and 5000 series Radeons are top notch hardware and are priced competitively. Oh wait...
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
95
The desktop isn't going anywhere.
Tablets/Smartphones/Small appliance type systems just don't do what desktops can in terms of use/raw power upgradeability etc etc.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
95
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Because there a premium product, you want better you pay for it.Another aspect why (sadly) Apple dominates -- do you see a cheap rubish "low end" Apple product? NOPE[/citation]

You don't know anything about computers then.
Apple makes low to mid grade desktops that are way to expensive for the hardware they pack and always have.
Their phone *was* top of the line when it first came out, now it's the same as others.

What, did you think that because it has a shiny case makes it a Ferrari in terms of speed?

ha! hahahahahahahahahahaha!
 

DaRAGingLunatic

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
I'm sorry but instead of a 10% gain in PC processing power per year, Give 60% and it will be a hot topic again. You should see the performance gains per year of mobile devices like smart phones compared to the graph of performance gains in PC's. Mobile device performance gains are huge compared. This is how they are closing the gap. Check this Youtube clip at 4:45 showing a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 replacing a PC. watch?v=9nh2NSLgaII
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]I'm sorry but instead of a 10% gain in PC processing power per year, Give 60% and it will be a hot topic again. You should see the performance gains per year of mobile devices like smart phones compared to the graph of performance gains in PC's. Mobile device performance gains are huge compared. This is how they are closing the gap. Check this Youtube clip at 4:45 showing a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 replacing a PC. watch?v=9nh2NSLgaII[/citation]hot topic yeah... may be.. but NOT hot sales, I pretty sure me & most others(casuals) will continue to stay with socket 775/socket AM2/3 because these platform are still going strong.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
Everybody who doesn't think ultrabooks are a major win is a fool. They will replace the normal "bulky" consumer laptops as soon as Asus and others get off their asses and convince the consumer that "Air" isn't the only thin laptop there is. Most of the people I see are not aware of existence of ultrabooks, gaming laptops and so on. So whenever they want mobility or powerful mobility, they go for a... Mac, right. And run Windows in it half the time. Because they don't need Mac OS, they just want something ultrathin OR mobile and powerful and are not aware that other vendors have something to offer too.

As for Windows 8, yes, in this case a fool is whoever thought that it'd change something.

Well, it did. Now MS can again be blamed for releasing a crappy OS, this time thanks to UI :D
 

Duckhunt

Honorable
Sep 22, 2012
339
0
10,810
10
You want to get the PC sales moving? First person shooters. We need a gun and not a joystick and 3 displays. We need eye infinity.

Upgrade the FPS software and push 1440p and 1600p as the new standard at 120fps ( frames per sec) and the minimum. I swear folk will start upgrading. We need the gun to have recoil when it fires.
 

DaRAGingLunatic

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]hot topic yeah... may be.. but NOT hot sales, I pretty sure me & most others(casuals) will continue to stay with socket 775/socket AM2/3 because these platform are still going strong.[/citation]

Most casuals will get an upgrade when they're in the need of a new computer. Most casuals don't know much about computers. They never have. But computer manufacturers like to compete and will provide better, faster products to try get an edge over the competition; as long as those better faster products are available for them to use. In the old days of CPU design there used to be 50%+ performance gains per generation. Now days CPU design is catering to the Mobile space more than the desktop. So they're doing smaller performance gains, but increasing energy efficiency and decreasing thermals.

In the old days the performance gains were used to run better, more resource intensive products that would use those performance gains. There were a lot of performance gains. Now it's less performance gains. Not as exciting. Not as much need to upgrade as time goes on as the next generation isn't that much better than the last.

I want PC's that push boundaries and push hardware and can let software makers push those new performance gains to the limit.

I don't want a damn laptop like every other man and dog. I don't want minimal gains. Performance gains make things more exciting.
 

DaRAGingLunatic

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
I mean... Where would we be if we had laptops when there were x386 CPU's and only had 10% performance gains per year... We certainly wouldn't be running anything as intense as windows XP... Or windows 7. Crysis would probably be a 1024 x 768 affair... looking like half life 1.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
1,492
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Sorry Intel/AMD/Nvidia/DRAM maker, I will continue to use my 4yrs old core 2 duo 3.2GHz/4GB + 9800GT PC for quite while. Please blame the software developer.[/citation]

you are obviously missing some games in yoru "playlist" if you are seriously getting by gaming on that set up ..

skyrim , mech warrior online , Crysis 2 , battle field 3, are just a few of the titles that require way more hard ware than you are fronting.
and don't tell me that is bullshit ... becasue untill sept temper i was gaming on a amd athy 64 x2 5000+ Oc'ed to 3 ghz with 6 gigs ram and a radeon 5770 (good step above your vid card about same cpu wise)
and all those games saw drops down to 20 or lower frame rate , in sept temper i upgraded my cpu to a phenom 9650 quad core , and well now skyrim is playable with lows at 28 fps average at 50 fps but mwo and battlefield still see bad drops even on lowered settings

i highly suggest you look at getting at least a i5 (intel) or Fx (AMD) 8 gigs of ram and radeon 6800 series or nivida gf 560 vid card if you want to call your system a serious modern gaming pc , in january i'll be looking to upgrade my whole pc myself because i'm not delusional in thinking my system passes the bar still

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]+1 rubbish console ports and average crappy games that aren't demanding on cpu/video or any bleading edge latest hardware.Game makers blame piracy, thats just bs.[/citation]

I just listed 3 major games that were not ports (skyrim and BF3 were multi system developed there is a difference ) and all above games pushhardware enough that you got to go 800+ bucks on a system to run them good they arnt budget ended games.

[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]Most casuals will get an upgrade when they're in the need of a new computer. Most casuals don't know much about computers. They never have. But computer manufacturers like to compete and will provide better, faster products to try get an edge over the competition; as long as those better faster products are available for them to use. In the old days of CPU design there used to be 50%+ performance gains per generation. Now days CPU design is catering to the Mobile space more than the desktop. So they're doing smaller performance gains, but increasing energy efficiency and decreasing thermals.In the old days the performance gains were used to run better, more resource intensive products that would use those performance gains. There were a lot of performance gains. Now it's less performance gains. Not as exciting. Not as much need to upgrade as time goes on as the next generation isn't that much better than the last.I want PC's that push boundaries and push hardware and can let software makers push those new performance gains to the limit.I don't want a damn laptop like every other man and dog. I don't want minimal gains. Performance gains make things more exciting.[/citation]

[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]I mean... Where would we be if we had laptops when there were x386 CPU's and only had 10% performance gains per year... We certainly wouldn't be running anything as intense as windows XP... Or windows 7. Crysis would probably be a 1024 x 768 affair... looking like half life 1.[/citation]


you make it sound as easy as throwing money at ithe issue. the fact is PC performance gains have dropped off , because we are reaching the physical limit of small wires and transitors can go, we arnt quite to the theorectical limit yet but as we get closer and closer progress will slow drastically we are alread at 22 nm the smallest a wire or transistor can get before any ammount of heat running across it destroys it is like 8 or 7 nm sounds like we are a long ways away from that .. however , we are reaching the limit on ways to reduce said trasistors and wires in size. This problem we can throw money at, to find new ways to create circuts and chips but as the number of easy to think up techniques dry up , this gets more time consuming.

but yeah throwing money at the laws of physics won't make them bend , you might as well stat throwing money at a way to fit a round peg into a square hole , because no ammount of money is going to make electron's smaller or make a electrical current not give off heat.

the point i'm getting at is there never will be a return to they days of super performance gains between chip generations , and really think about this would you really want to return to those days , ??? only the super rich elite could afford to stay pc gamers if today's market was like this when top end video cards cost 300-600 dollars and top end cpu's cost 200-1000 dollars , most people just don't have 1000 bucks to spend non a new pc every year , hell i doubt you got that kind of money even, i sure as hell hope to sh-- that those day's don't return.

as for mobile gains this is mostly due to the fact that mobile chip developers DON"T have to build around backward compatibility as much as a PC cpu does , note todays processors are still based off x86 , architecture. a quite outdated architecture . most the gains in mobile devices come from making better architctures that are more efficent at what they do , not die shrinks
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]+1 rubbish console ports and average crappy games that aren't demanding on cpu/video or any bleading edge latest hardware.Game makers blame piracy, thats just bs.[/citation]

games determine everything on a pc? i think not

look at software. how often do you see benchmarks that have a dual core at half the speed as a quad core. or a 4th the speed as an 8 core (yea im going into server cpus there, not amds 4core thread system)

now how often do you see a single core preforming about the same as all 4 cores...

thats what they mean by blame software developers, they are screwing around not supporting multi core stystems even though they went mainstreams what 6 years ago? and we had dual chip motherboards for home use before than too.

software is not takeing advantage of gpgpu and multicore as a whole, so why upgrade?

sure games can push the gpu but one game wont make me upgrade, it will make me turn the settings down, but not upgrade outright.

[citation][nom]Duckhunt[/nom]You want to get the PC sales moving? First person shooters. We need a gun and not a joystick and 3 displays. We need eye infinity.Upgrade the FPS software and push 1440p and 1600p as the new standard at 120fps ( frames per sec) and the minimum. I swear folk will start upgrading. We need the gun to have recoil when it fires.[/citation]

sorry, but we are going to move to head mount displays instead of pushing 1440 or 1600 soon. you get effectivly a 360 degree monitor, and if you look at the wiiu, they have in there tech to feed video to the tablet faster than it can travel the hdmi wire, so wireless head mount displays soon. god i cant wait. raceing games just got cool again.

[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]I mean... Where would we be if we had laptops when there were x386 CPU's and only had 10% performance gains per year... We certainly wouldn't be running anything as intense as windows XP... Or windows 7. Crysis would probably be a 1024 x 768 affair... looking like half life 1.[/citation]

you are looking at an emerging market, a new cpu architecture, and its beginnings.
for the most part, unless you radically change the way you make a cpu or how they are put together, you wont get much of a boost. it will be increments.

if you want to see the most recent change to the cpu, take a look at intels pre on cpu gpu, and post, sure most of us don't use it, but look at the difference it made for the people who do.
 

DaRAGingLunatic

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]you make it sound as easy as throwing money at ithe issue. the fact is PC performance gains have dropped off , because we are reaching the physical limit of small wires and transitors can go, we arnt quite to the theorectical limit yet but as we get closer and closer progress will slow drastically we are alread at 22 nm the smallest a wire or transistor can get before any ammount of heat running across it destroys it is like 8 or 7 nm sounds like we are a long ways away from that .. however , we are reaching the limit on ways to reduce said trasistors and wires in size. This problem we can throw money at, to find new ways to create circuts and chips but as the number of easy to think up techniques dry up , this gets more time consuming. but yeah throwing money at the laws of physics won't make them bend , you might as well stat throwing money at a way to fit a round peg into a square hole , because no ammount of money is going to make electron's smaller or make a electrical current not give off heat. the point i'm getting at is there never will be a return to they days of super performance gains between chip generations , and really think about this would you really want to return to those days , ??? only the super rich elite could afford to stay pc gamers if today's market was like this when top end video cards cost 300-600 dollars and top end cpu's cost 200-1000 dollars , most people just don't have 1000 bucks to spend non a new pc every year , hell i doubt you got that kind of money even, i sure as hell hope to sh-- that those day's don't return. as for mobile gains this is mostly due to the fact that mobile chip developers DON"T have to build around backward compatibility as much as a PC cpu does , note todays processors are still based off x86 , architecture. a quite outdated architecture . most the gains in mobile devices come from making better architctures that are more efficent at what they do , not die shrinks[/citation]

Sure we are getting down to very low transistor sizes. 22nm at the moment. 14nm next. So sure a die shrink. But performance gains hardly come out of die shrinks. It's more the architectural changes to the processors that increase gains. And sure, I agree that some of those performance gains were due to the Ghz race. But remember the jump from the Pentium 4 back to the architecture based off the Pentium 3, aptly named Core? Remember the Core 2 Duo's or Core 2 Quads. What performance gains they made. So the die shrink allows a bigger architecture to process more. Instead of doing a lot more processing, it's mainly been put into power efficiency gains and reducing Thermals. Sure, they're important aspects into the mobile arena, but not so much for desktop PC.

As for the top end CPU's back in the day being $200-$1000. That was due to manufacturing. There are a lot more fabs able to produce a lot more CPU's. Things have become more efficient in manufacturing. Prices wont go up (and if they do not by much) to produce a beefier CPU.

And fail to see why you would call x86 processors outdated...
Intel are doing research at the moment to have a CPU that will be attached to your skull or brain, that can read your brain-waves so you can operate computers and anything wireless using your thoughts. They plan to have this product to market in 2020. Do you think it will be a x86 processor? ;-p
 

happyballz

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2011
269
0
18,780
0
Anyone with a half a brain knows that tablets, smartphones and etc. cannot replace a standalone PC. This is especially true on work computers. I always get latest smartphones (note 2 now) but I can clearly see they are a convenience device not a powerhouse like a desktop PC.

Besides PC gives much more freedom for people to install and use whatever they want. Tablets, smartphones are much more restricted.

Too bad trends are set mostly by people with less than half a brain and ones who don't know any better.
 

DaRAGingLunatic

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
As for performance gains via physics bending. No physics bending need apply. Just Graphene.

"The performance of these transistors, partially described by the cutoff frequency, depends on the quality of the underlying graphene. When the graphene was made by vapor deposition, 46-nm channel length transistors had a cutoff frequency of 212 GHz at 0.6 V. The cutoff frequency increases to 427 GHz with 1.1V applied across 67-nm transistor of higher-quality peeled graphene–the highest frequency for such a transistor."http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/high-performance-graphene-transistors-made-using-sticky-tape/

But does that seem like something Intel would want out there in the market? A 427 Ghz processor? Upgrades would be a lot rarer. It would sure hurt the bottom line the next generation around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS