PC Processor Sales Expected to Grow Just Just 1.6% in 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kryan

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2008
233
0
18,680
0
just just -.-

Reviewing your article ftw. Btw, what happened to that job posting (which I applied for) re the article reviewing and spell checking and stuff? Whoever got the job is doing great... [/sarcasm]
 

icemunk

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2009
628
0
18,990
2
Yes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel
 
G

Guest

Guest
More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.
 

Vestin

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2009
65
0
18,630
0
What a sick world we live in, where people buying ADDITIONAL stuff is not enough, people buying MORE stuff than previously is not enough, they are expected to buy SO MUCH that the amount bough now compared to last year will be (substantially) higher than the amount bought last year compared to the one before that.
 

blubbey

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2010
274
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]WhatAMess[/nom]More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.[/citation]
They don't need to push that hard in terms of pure CPU performance. It's not like AMD is beating them or really that close in performance per GHz. Besides, Haswell will probably concentrate on graphics, power and from what I hear it'll be a good/great overclocker. Broadwell will be an even bigger jump on graphics and power and the year after Intel will probably be making awesome mobile CPU's.
 

fnh

Honorable
Oct 10, 2012
70
0
10,630
0
[citation][nom]WhatAMess[/nom]More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.[/citation]

Heck, I'm a Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale) user. My upgrade plan is to wait for Broadwell. That's as viable as it can get.
 

Soda-88

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
1,086
0
19,460
76
[citation][nom]WhatAMess[/nom]More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.[/citation]
Yeah, my overclocked i5 760 is still doing great at 4GHz.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
1
19,780
0
[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]Yes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel[/citation]

Without competition Intel will do what they always have without competition... milk out as much money as possible for small upgrades. Question is if it will work this time when the cpu's are so darn powerful for everyday tasks even in entry level computers.

The above coupled with less than stellar interest in win8 & global regression its hardly surprising sales is what it is. That it still increases vs those odds - Now THAT is amazing!
 

heero yuy

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2010
494
0
18,810
7
i have a feeling that intel are giving us small increases in performance just to stay ahead of AMD
if AMD was suddenly to overtake intel by miles I bet that intel would instantly announce a new batch of processors that are better
 

deksman

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2011
221
15
18,685
0
Well, what exactly was expected?
We are in the midst of one of the biggest recessions from which there will be no recovery (because its becoming that much easier and cheaper/cost effective to automate a job than to wait for a Human to train to do it - Humans are limited in terms of how long they can work, machines can work non-stop without rest, breaks, sick-days, health care and pension - and computers have surpassed Humans in specialized tasks over 10 years ago - ALL jobs Humans do today are basically highly specialized - and most jobs are completely unproductive/useless to society at large - they only exist for the purpose of moving money around, which became useless over 100 years ago in the face of our technologically produced abundance, and in the last 60 years, enormous automation that CAN replace Humans in every field - the technology in circulation/use today can be used to automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow - I give Capitalism another decade or so before it crashes [yet again]).

 

obsama1

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2012
3,070
0
21,160
103
[citation][nom]WhatAMess[/nom]More eyes on Intel, coming from a happy although flabbergasted owner of Core i7 920 since 2008. It's been 4 years, and there STILL is nothing viable to upgrade my CPU to?! It's a mess of your own making, Intel.[/citation]

While it is true that innovation is stagnating, it's also good that our CPUs don't become obsolete every year.
 

fearless1333

Honorable
Jun 25, 2012
62
0
10,660
6
Intel should stop focusing on improving integrated graphics. Fine it's selfish and completely unwise, but I want the big improvements back to the actual processor :(.
 

vigorvermin

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
150
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Well, what exactly was expected?We are in the midst of one of the biggest recessions from which there will be no recovery (because its becoming that much easier and cheaper/cost effective to automate a job than to wait for a Human to train to do it - Humans are limited in terms of how long they can work, machines can work non-stop without rest, breaks, sick-days, health care and pension - and computers have surpassed Humans in specialized tasks over 10 years ago - ALL jobs Humans do today are basically highly specialized - and most jobs are completely unproductive/useless to society at large - they only exist for the purpose of moving money around, which became useless over 100 years ago in the face of our technologically produced abundance, and in the last 60 years, enormous automation that CAN replace Humans in every field - the technology in circulation/use today can be used to automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow - I give Capitalism another decade or so before it crashes [yet again]).[/citation]

Don't go quoting zeitgeist without doing your research into him. He's not a unbiased opinion, and this just simply isn't true.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]Yes, because why would we upgrade for a measly 5-10% speed increase? We want the big gains back. Moore's law needs to make a comeback. I'm talking to you Intel[/citation]
5-10% gains... ok, thats bad if you upgrade on a yearly basis, but really how many people do that, or i should say do that sense the core do and athlon x2?

lets look at a 4-6 year cycle.

at 5% yearly increase the power difference is
5%
10.25%
15.76%
21.55%
27.63%
and
34%

or on a 10%
10%
21%
33.1%
46.41%
61.05%
77.15%

at the same time, the chips are getting smaller, cheaper (should be) and more power efficient so you don't need that big eff off cooler any more.

what i see more than anything else is that we should be moving away from conventional cpu types.
programs should be built with threads in mind...

tell me the program that CAN NOT function at all with threads and requires 1 cpu, and could not be re written to use more than one thread.

and on that note, show me the program that needs cpu power exclusively and can not run off a gpu, yes i know there is code that cant run off a gpu, im not stupid, but how much of that software is consumer? how much of those applications aren't either server or academic (supper computer) based needs?

the way i see it, more cores and theading is the future, not insane single core speeds, and right now, the hardware is here, but the software is seriously lagging.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS