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

[fuzzion]

[citation][nom]daraginglunatic[/nom]"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.[/citation]

Same thing with every industry. The ford escort produced 600hp of reliable hp in the 1970's. That was its rally machine.

Supercars today are barely matching it

 

[DaRAGingLunatic]

[citation][nom]fuzzion[/nom]Same thing with every industry. The ford escort produced 600hp of reliable hp in the 1970's. That was its rally machine. Supercars today are barely matching it[/citation]

What i'm trying to get at is we could all have supercomputers in our phones by now, and super-super computers at our desktops by now if companies weren't releasing only 10% performance gains per tech cycle by basing their CPU designs around mainstream mobile devices.

Lets do the 10% gains per time.

22nm - Ivy Bridge
new architecture Haswell - 1.1 Ivy Bridges
14nm 1.21 Ivy Bridges
new architecture 1.331 Ivy Bridges
10nm 1.4641 Ivy Bridges
new architecture 1.61051 Ivy Bridges
6nm 1.77 Ivy Bridges
new architecture 1.94 Ivy Bridges
4nm 2.14 Ivy Bridges
new architecture 2.36 Ivy Bridges
2nm 2.59 Ivy Bridges
new architecture 2.85 Ivy Bridges

It's just not enough. We need more oomph.
If the current transistors and die shrinks are somehow putting a limit on performance gains per product cycle, then why are there such big gains in the mobile/smartphone arena compared to the desktop/laptop arena?

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]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...[/citation]
Anyone who thinks Ultrabooks are relevant to any but a small percentage of the world's population (or even the population of the First World) needs to step back a few paces and get a sense of perspective. When "Ultrabooks" hit the same sub-half-a-grand price point currently occupied by bulky 15.6" laptops with mediocre 768p screens, then they will be relevant to the average consumer, and not before.

Having recently revived a desktop that was purchased the better part of a decade ago for a family member (by cleaning and re-pasting the heatsink/CPU, nothing complicated) I can tell you that this person did not have the purchase of an Ultrabook in mind as a backup plan, had my efforts proved unsuccessful. They would have simply used an old laptop of another family member who had recently upgraded to a sub-$300 netbook.

I don't know if y'all have noticed, but there's kind of a global economic catastrof--k going on out there. Yeah, I care enough to get a ThinkPad (and no, not an ultra-portable one), and yeah, maybe most people here on Toms Hardware care enough to get some kind of "nice" computer, but most people? Don't.

 

[amoralman]

Corporate weight in the PC sale balance = Huge, and the base of the PC industry
Games weight = moderate
Windows 8's weight = Does not even affect the scale. This is all marketing to push the sale of the unneeded OS that MS decided to throw on desktop while it should have stayed on tablets were it belongs.

Since the C2D, there has not been real record breaking advances in CPUs. In part because of AMD who abandoned the battle.

As for GPU, as others said, why bother as almost everything we throw at them is console ports or Indi games (which some are marvelous btw, but not taxing).

I do think the market will stabilize, but until some new awesome CPU hit the shelves, we won't see a major upward trend.

 

[jj463rd]

DRM is to blame.Honestly I liked the 1990's era better.The newer technology is much better but DRM ruined a lot of the excitement for me.Some things make up for part of the loss like Good Old Games.

 

[somebodyspecial]

An Ultrabook's ULTRA price and Win8 are the problem here (nobody wants win8 - here come the 5 win8 lovers...LOL). On top of that games made for consoles put a high end PC to sleep. Start making games FOR PC (and port DOWN to console), and we'll need to upgrade again. Until they stop making games for this console gen, no point in most upgrading. I'm going to upgrade shortly but not until Intel drops the price on the ivy top chips. No interest in paying the same price they debut at 9-12 months later.

Stop making things thinner that are NOT better. Just keep this in mind Mr. Device maker: Can it run any game for 10hrs? No? Make it thicker then. Can it run all day without a charge doing some major stuff (I'm talking to you mr phone maker also)? No? Make it thicker! I'm not talking an inch wide, but I'll take a 1/2 in any day. Other than a VERY small percent of PURE road warriors these ultrabooks things are just netbooks perf wise so very useless to most of us. If you're not within 500mhz of my desktop desired chip you're wasting my time and I won't waste my money Figure out how to get a chip to run LONGER and FASTER for cheaper, not slower, for less time and thinner all while costing me 2-3x a great regular laptop. I can get an HP ivy i5 quad 3ghz+ 17in with great battery life for $950 loaded. Why would I buy an ultrabook or Air for that matter? To play a 10yr old game? That's about all that would run on 4000 graphics etc. You're fighting to go the wrong way. I'm not sure who told you thinner is better, but that was only true to a point. Now it's just screwing you out of sales because none of them can get through a day doing anything real. The idea we would all buy crappy thin laptops was moronic. That guy should be fired. Give me dual batteries (or one huge one?), MXM graphics and you might get a grand from me if it can take two HD's (or at least an HD with SSD). Innovate there, not in tooth-pic thin laptops that run out of gas are are very underpowered. Those will only sell to 1% of the population at best. This won't change until they aren't underpowered and run out of gas quickly (10nm?). Until then go back to innovating fat laptops

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]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 stillI 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. you make it sound as easy as throwing money at ithe issue. [/citation]
1. Do u seriously think a few games can decide most gamer to upgrade. Those few titles barely make up 20-30% of the gaming market.
2. Skyrim IS A CONSOLE PORT, check the UI. I can run skyrim @ high setting @ core 2 duo 3GHz @ 9800GT @ 1680x1050 without lagging.
3. PC market are not consist of gaming only. They are more casual using facebook/utubing/anime/movie than hardcore gamer. There is not diff between i5/i7 for websurfing/youtubing vs a core 2 duo machine.
4. we may be closing to transistor limit, but those little gain are because the CPU are pushing to mobile space. U also forgot that CPU these days have GPU on it. GPU takes up large portion of TDP headroom and die size. if it is not for GPU, intel can make 6 core mainstream @ the current process nm @ the same die size and clock higher due to missing GPU.

 

[quangluu96]

Still enjoying my E7500 3.3ghz, 4GB ram and a GTS 250 ^^, run all games perfectly fine, but lag in BF3, but not in MOH warfighter o.o and they both use the same engine.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]Soda-88[/nom]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...[/citation]
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]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![/citation]

So why is Apple doing so well and is still growing and not struggling? You tell me this?

It doesnt matter about the last gen hardware and a $500 premium - its the finish, the fact that it wont be a pentium dual core or an Atom processor or some low end piece of rubbish its something half decent.

The PC market is so rubbish because all the manufacturers are clambering over each other trying to offer the most cheapest nastiest computers rather then make a nice decent mid/high end product, of course the consumer would rather pay $300 then $600 and doesn't care to find out what there missing out on, and of course there going to be disappointed at there crappy pc and then they hear all the "macs are so much better" and next time they may go Apple and will be impressed because of the fact that it cant be slow, it cant be low end. This is a trend that has been happening for a long time.

This is a growing trend, it will be the demise of the PC market in the long run.

Regardless if you guys understand this, its the way it is, vote me down i dont care this forum is full of wanna be techs and rednecks.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]An Ultrabook's ULTRA price and Win8 are the problem here (nobody wants win8 - here come the 5 win8 lovers...LOL). On top of that games made for consoles put a high end PC to sleep. Start making games FOR PC (and port DOWN to console), and we'll need to upgrade again. Until they stop making games for this console gen, no point in most upgrading. I'm going to upgrade shortly but not until Intel drops the price on the ivy top chips. No interest in paying the same price they debut at 9-12 months later.Stop making things thinner that are NOT better. Just keep this in mind Mr. Device maker: Can it run any game for 10hrs? No? Make it thicker then. Can it run all day without a charge doing some major stuff (I'm talking to you mr phone maker also)? No? Make it thicker! I'm not talking an inch wide, but I'll take a 1/2 in any day. Other than a VERY small percent of PURE road warriors these ultrabooks things are just netbooks perf wise so very useless to most of us. If you're not within 500mhz of my desktop desired chip you're wasting my time and I won't waste my money Figure out how to get a chip to run LONGER and FASTER for cheaper, not slower, for less time and thinner all while costing me 2-3x a great regular laptop. I can get an HP ivy i5 quad 3ghz+ 17in with great battery life for $950 loaded. Why would I buy an ultrabook or Air for that matter? To play a 10yr old game? That's about all that would run on 4000 graphics etc. You're fighting to go the wrong way. I'm not sure who told you thinner is better, but that was only true to a point. Now it's just screwing you out of sales because none of them can get through a day doing anything real. The idea we would all buy crappy thin laptops was moronic. That guy should be fired. Give me dual batteries (or one huge one?), MXM graphics and you might get a grand from me if it can take two HD's (or at least an HD with SSD). Innovate there, not in tooth-pic thin laptops that run out of gas are are very underpowered. Those will only sell to 1% of the population at best. This won't change until they aren't underpowered and run out of gas quickly (10nm?). Until then go back to innovating fat laptops[/citation]

Ultrabooks = long battery life, high end low power/tdp processor, SSD and this profile limits.

Theres a reason they cost so much, its all premium components, dont want to pay for the newer higher end components? Get a regular fat laptop that only lasts 2.5 hours on battery and stop complaining about why a costly item is costly.

Ever tried to lug a huge laptop onto a plane and try to use it and next minute the battery runs out?

By your logic a $500,000 ferrari should only cost $25,000 like every other cheap crappy car.

Not everyone is like you.

Ultrabooks are the dream product, portable and huge batter life = win.

Go look at one some time, dont just complain about the fact you cant afford one.

 

[somebodyspecial]

First the point is you get no power in an ultrabook. I can dominate it with the laptop I mentioned and it's NOT a piece of junk (comes with a 2GB vid card too NV650, places for 2 HD's etc...I know, picked out out for my sister).

It lasts a good 7hrs-9hrs depending on what she does (not gaming of course). My old i9300 from dell lasts that long, not todays tech and it only sucks that fast because of the Nv6800go in it...LOL.

Just checked the top core in an HP ultrabook. It's an i5-3317u 1.7ghz...ROFLMAO (it bursts to 2.6 but that's still a joke, this needs to be 3ghz minimum). Of course it lasts long with that in it. Go back and read my post. Make it thicker if you have to resort to his crappy cpu to get those hours and it's only got a 7670amd vid. They've chopped so much power out of these things they're worthless. Like I said, quit making them so thin so more will want them. They've designed themselves right into "what the heck would I pay you much for that power" territory.

Clearly I wasn't saying I can't afford the price. The problem is what I GET for that price. A slow piece of junk that could NEVER even begin to replace a desktop or regular notebook even. It's only useful for a pure road warrior (and even then, I'd think twice with so little functionality). My sister had a grand, could have opted for an ultrabook, but I put the specs down side by side and me and my nephew got a good laugh. Translation - She bought the loaded HP 17in fat-top... DV7t model (with dual drive support..heh).

You logic is incorrect. IF I pay for that Ferrari, I'll get one of the fastest cars on the block. It will eat that $25000 car you mention alive most likely. This is not the same story with an ultrabook vs. it's FAR cheaper loaded bigger brother. For the ULTRA price I expect ULTRA performance and better cherry picked chips. It should come much closer to a regular laptop otherwise what part of it is ULTRA other than being thin? It has the same SSD, the same memory etc. They are not higher end components. A lower watt cpu is about all you get, and in a thin package.

If ultrabooks are the dream product how come sales SUCK seriously bad...LOL. Umm, maybe they're not so ULTRA huh?

I'm afraid FAR more are like me, or they'd be selling instead of Intel making excuses for poor sales. Nobody can move these things at these prices. Sorry you seem like an Intel employee. FYI, I could afford one of these with just the extra cash I have per month...LOL, EVERY MONTH. I just don't see the point for so little power.

What makes you think I haven't looked at one?...ROFL. I'm in IT and even had a PC business for 8yrs. I pretty much check out every piece of tech that comes out. If I took the regular 750 out of my sisters and just had SSD in, it would last even longer. She gets good power now and replaced a dead desktop with it. $1000 really isn't that much these days. The DV7t is only about 2-2.5lbs heaver with SSD and you get so much more options and a 17in. With the current 50% off a 6+9 cell option I get just about the same battery life...LOL. It's just a very tough sell for your ultrabook...Sorry. I'd rather have a fat-top and a top end 10-13in tablet for my ultra uses.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]First the point is you get no power in an ultrabook. I can dominate it with the laptop I mentioned and it's NOT a piece of junk (comes with a 2GB vid card too NV650, places for 2 HD's etc...I know, picked out out for my sister).It lasts a good 7hrs-9hrs depending on what she does (not gaming of course). My old i9300 from dell lasts that long, not todays tech and it only sucks that fast because of the Nv6800go in it...LOL.Just checked the top core in an HP ultrabook. It's an i5-3317u 1.7ghz...ROFLMAO (it bursts to 2.6 but that's still a joke, this needs to be 3ghz minimum). Of course it lasts long with that in it. Go back and read my post. Make it thicker if you have to resort to his crappy cpu to get those hours and it's only got a 7670amd vid. They've chopped so much power out of these things they're worthless. Like I said, quit making them so thin so more will want them. They've designed themselves right into "what the heck would I pay you much for that power" territory.Clearly I wasn't saying I can't afford the price. The problem is what I GET for that price. A slow piece of junk that could NEVER even begin to replace a desktop or regular notebook even. It's only useful for a pure road warrior (and even then, I'd think twice with so little functionality). My sister had a grand, could have opted for an ultrabook, but I put the specs down side by side and me and my nephew got a good laugh. Translation - She bought the loaded HP 17in fat-top... DV7t model (with dual drive support..heh). You logic is incorrect. IF I pay for that Ferrari, I'll get one of the fastest cars on the block. It will eat that $25000 car you mention alive most likely. This is not the same story with an ultrabook vs. it's FAR cheaper loaded bigger brother. For the ULTRA price I expect ULTRA performance and better cherry picked chips. It should come much closer to a regular laptop otherwise what part of it is ULTRA other than being thin? It has the same SSD, the same memory etc. They are not higher end components. A lower watt cpu is about all you get, and in a thin package.If ultrabooks are the dream product how come sales SUCK seriously bad...LOL. Umm, maybe they're not so ULTRA huh?I'm afraid FAR more are like me, or they'd be selling instead of Intel making excuses for poor sales. Nobody can move these things at these prices. Sorry you seem like an Intel employee. FYI, I could afford one of these with just the extra cash I have per month...LOL, EVERY MONTH. I just don't see the point for so little power.What makes you think I haven't looked at one?...ROFL. I'm in IT and even had a PC business for 8yrs. I pretty much check out every piece of tech that comes out. If I took the regular 750 out of my sisters and just had SSD in, it would last even longer. She gets good power now and replaced a dead desktop with it. $1000 really isn't that much these days. The DV7t is only about 2-2.5lbs heaver with SSD and you get so much more options and a 17in. With the current 50% off a 6+9 cell option I get just about the same battery life...LOL. It's just a very tough sell for your ultrabook...Sorry. I'd rather have a fat-top and a top end 10-13in tablet for my ultra uses.[/citation]

You do know clock speeds are irrelevant right? You do understand this, yes?

Not everyone is like you, but you can keep thinking that, its ok.

Pulling rank on how long you have been doing things? Thats nice cool story bro needs more dragons.

I don't care how long you have been doing things that just means your getting old and loosing your edge, a dinosaur.



Ultrabooks are the way of the future live with it.

 

[mamailo]

"2. Skyrim IS A CONSOLE PORT, check the UI. I can run skyrim @ high setting @ core 2 duo 3GHz @ 9800GT @ 1680x1050 without lagging"

You are lying or have a very loose definition of lagging.60 fps are impossible on that gear.
Either way this is a PC, if you don like the UI change it for one of the 3 mayor overhaulings available at nexus mods.
I would not call games based on the Frostbite or Creation engines a "Port" since the PC and console versions have vastly different capabilities (unlike Unreal 3 witch do not) . You can start by installing the free official HD texture pack or even better; the community combo 4k textures and high resolution meshes.
...ooops you can not in that obsolete hardware.
So... trust me; it makes the XBOX version looks like morrowind in comparation.

"...Ultrabooks are the way of the future live with it."

Honestly; I hope not.
It has to be a better way to get longer usage time than Intel blackmailing the manufacturers.Dictating the specs from the chip-makers desires and not from the market needs is why the Ultrabook initiative is a failure.

More or less is the Windows 8 paradigm. It was created for milking developers sales and make then dance to their rules for usage of the Microsoft’s app store and force your application to provide services to the OS. M$ gets your Intellectual Property for free.

I have nothing against new approaches to functionality but when Win8 stubbornly try to send data to the cloud (mostly; Live!) is a big "no thanks" for most users.
Time to uninstall.