Why Haven't Computer Basics Developed in 20-30 Years?

[Oasis Curator]

Yes, we have better graphics cards than ever but...

Why are PSUs still cabled the way they are and not USB or something similar?
From the large motherboard power clip to the ones for individual components, why are they the same as they've almost ever been?
I get motherboards want different voltages but is there not something onboard that can distribute power properly? Do modern motherboards really need all those voltages?

Why have processors not really got much quicker?
Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

BIOS
Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

There are other components of a PC that don't seem very up to date, but I can't quite think of them right now.
Opinions? Thoughts?

 

[USAFRet]

Systems have gotten better. A lot better.

CPU 'speed'? GHz is by far not the only measure.
While the raw GHz numbers haven't really changes (physics), the IPC has changed a LOT. Instructions per Clock.

Consider 2 vehicles, both going 55mph.
One is a Honda Covic, with 3 people in it (older CPU).
The other is a fully loaded school bus, with 50 people in it (new CPU).

Both going the same 'speed', but which one is doing more work?


PSU cables?
The power needed is too much for tiny USB wiring. Need larger gauge wires.

Boot time?
That is a poor metric.
But, you've obviously forgotten days gone by.
Press the power button, go get a cup of coffee, gab with your coworker for a few....
Then, your system may be up and running.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Yes, we have better graphics cards than ever but...

Why are PSUs still cabled the way they are and not USB or something similar?
From the large motherboard power clip to the ones for individual components, why are they the same as they've almost ever been?
I get motherboards want different voltages but is there not something onboard that can distribute power properly? Do modern motherboards really need all those voltages?

Actually Intel's new PSU standard moves power distribution to the motherboard and so PSUs only supply 12v. It has not yet been widely adopted.

Physics is your other problem. USB is way too small gauge to handle the power components need.

Why have processors not really got much quicker?
Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

Physics. First off there are plenty of more than 8 core mainstream processors now. We haven't been stuck at all. We were stuck around 4 cores (AMD FX doesn't count as 8) but that has changed. And saying they haven't gotten "quicker" is a cop out. The clock speeds may not have changed, but Instructions per clock have increased exponentially, processors can do WAY more with every tick of the clock than ever before.

BIOS
Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

There are other components of a PC that don't seem very up to date, but I can't quite think of them right now.
Opinions? Thoughts?

Not sure what you want here, systems start super fast now, there is fast boot that cuts down on the system checks. Many are almost instant on.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Why are PSUs still cabled the way they are and not USB or something similar?

USB is not designed to handle the high power or current requirements that say an EPS12V or PCIe cable needs to carry. Some of the cable need to carry up 10-12 amps safely, whereas most USB cables are rated for up to 3 amps, with 5 amps being a recent thing.

From the large motherboard power clip to the ones for individual components, why are they the same as they've almost ever been?

It's a physically secure connection. The last thing I want my main power cable to be capable of is wiggling out.

I get motherboards want different voltages but is there not something onboard that can distribute power properly? Do modern motherboards really need all those voltages?

Yes and no. Yes in that most of the actual chips use various voltages ranging from 5V, 3.3V, 1.5V, etc. But there's discussion on where that should happen. Intel wants to push 12VO so that the only thing going to the motherboard is 12V. But this means the motherboard is now responsible for stepping down the voltages for parts that need it (which... it's doing any way for things below 3.3V)

Why have processors not really got much quicker?

Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

The short answer is: we've either exhausted the tricks we've come up with or any new ones aren't feasible.

What were those tricks?

• Pipelining the operations (Adding more stages can help increase clock speed limits, but it also increases the penalty if the pipeline has to be flushed)
• RISC instruction set architectures, to simplify the instruction and data processing such that each instruction can be done in a single clock cycle (you can't really get better than this)
• Caching (at some point, looking in cache will exceed the time it would've taken to go find the thing in memory)
• Making multiple executing units (but there's only so many instructions you can execute at once from the same app)
• Branch prediction (this is never going to be perfect due to the Halting Problem)
• Out-of-order execution (There's only so much you can look ahead to optimize the order, plus you have to make it seem like the instructions were executed in-order to the rest of the system)
• Simultaneous multithreading (This is only useful if there are spare execution units, which isn't predictable)

It's important to also understand that CPUs are not primarily a data processing unit, as paradoxical as that sounds. A CPU's strength is being able to process any set of instructions as quickly as possible. So it has a number of execution units that can perform different instructions on different data. In contrast, a GPU has groups of execution units that perform only the same operation. If there's separate code paths due to say a branching condition, only one group can take one path while another group takes the other. To put it in an example, If some code a GPU bumps into has a condition where even one execution unit can't execute the same instruction, it has to stuff it into another group or use another cycle to process it.

BIOS
Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

Some BIOSes do offer a mode where it doesn't do a deep hardware enumeration if it doesn't detect something's different. It still has to ping for the hardware because you can't really assume the hardware always exists, but that's still faster than trying to figure out what it is. Also the thing to remember is that unless you're a system builder, you're likely going to get a BIOS package that works generically. The only tweaks you'll make are specific to the board's I/O configuration, but everything else is likely going to be the same.

System builders have the luxury of tweaking their BIOSes further, because they know exactly what's going into their computers.

There are other components of a PC that don't seem very up to date, but I can't quite think of them right now.
Opinions? Thoughts?

Define what "up-to-date" even is. What's an example of something that is "up-to-date" compared to what's available now? Like is there an "up-to-date" CPU? Motherboard? PSU? What?

It's hard to determine anything if there's no objective definition.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

Yes, we have better graphics cards than ever but...

Why are PSUs still cabled the way they are and not USB or something similar?
From the large motherboard power clip to the ones for individual components, why are they the same as they've almost ever been?
I get motherboards want different voltages but is there not something onboard that can distribute power properly? Do modern motherboards really need all those voltages?

Couple of things here:

1. Why change what works and is for the most part (with the exception of modular cables) stable.
2. Why isn't power distribution on the motherboard? Simple: HEAT

Why have processors not really got much quicker?
Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

As above: HEAT
The pathways in modern CPU's have reached the point where they're only 2 or 3 atoms wide (Yes, atoms). Trying to push things through such small pathways at great speeds generates tremendous amounts of heat that must be removed.

BIOS
Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

BIOS is what puts the motherboard in a position to begin booting an OS (as one of its many functions). What exactly would you replace it with?

 

[Eximo]

Faster GPUs, better in some ways like ray tracing and new AA and performance enhancements. Power requirements have been going through the roof though.

There are two PSU changes coming. 12VO as mentioned above. Using the motherboard to generate lower voltages. Many OEMs have been doing this for a while.

The other big one is a new 16 pin PCIe 5.0 power cable that can support up to 600W. That should be popping up in servers soon, make its way to consumers at some point. Nvidia also has their 12-pin PCIe cable for their founder edition cards now, but it is just converting two PCIe 8-pin to a 12 -pin. Still a molex type connector, but it is Micro vs the current Mini standard we've been using for a while. I would not be surprised if something similar is proposed for 12VO at some point.

I think CPUs were pretty well covered.

Storage is the only other thing that has finally broken free and started getting better. SATA, then SATA SSDs saturated things, then M.2 NVMe storage, and it is growing in speed as fast the PCIe standard is growing.

I would say the biggest innovations have been getting rid of the barriers between hardware inside the systems. Direct GPU to Storage, Resizeable BAR and stuff like that.

 

[Eximo]

Speaking of BIOSes, I actually turned mine on to the slow start up for a while. Running my memory a little overclocked and want the full check.

 

[logainofhades]

Why have processors not really got much quicker?
Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

The R9 3900x/3950x, 5900x/5950x, 10850k/10900k, and all the K skew 12th gen, and non K skew i7/i9 are all more than 8 cores, all boasting turbo speeds of over 4ghz. We haven't been stuck at 8 cores ever. 1st gen Ryzen came out with the first mainstream 8 core chip, and followed it up with a 12 and 16 core, only 2 years later.

 

[Colif]

Why have processors not really got much quicker?
Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

speed = heat. We been stuck at around 5ghz since Pentium 5 days. Its a question of materials. And physics. We can go faster but the cooling needed is silly. So instead of going faster, they added more cores, and now they finding other ways like going 3d to fit more into the space.

BIOS
Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

The bios you see now is the 2nd version. I have to assume you have a UEFI bios.

Spoiler

Up until 2009 all PC used Legacy bios.

• They didn't know what a mouse was, you had to use arrow keys on kb to navigate them. They weren't very modifiable, they had to be a certain size and were only 32bit.
• They only used Legacy boot method (it wasn't called legacy yet)

it uses MBR - MBR stands for Master Boot record
MBR drives can only have 4 partitions and max drive size is 2.2tb
Boot partition on MBR drives is always 1st partition on drive

In 2009 UEFI was released to replace Legacy bios. UEFI stands for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface

• it uses a graphical interface that knows what a mouse is
• It can be expanded and have new features added
• It can use UEFI or Legacy boot method
• It can boot legacy drives since it was made to replace BIOS, can't not be backwards compatible.

It supports GPT drives. GPT stands for GUID (GUID = Global Unique ID - every GPT drive on earth has its own number) Partition Table
GPT drives can have up to 256 partitions and max drive size is a silly 18.8 million tb

Boot partition on a GPT drive can be anywhere.
All PC before win 7 used MBR

• Win 7 32bit uses MBR only
• Win 7 64bit can be MBR or GPT
• win 10 64 bit can also be either but it prefers GPT
• Win 11 only supports GPT

UEFI boot method can boot both MBR & GPT drives (as you found in other thread)

Legacy can only boot MBR, it doesn't know what GPT is for booting

So while it might appear nothing has changed, it really has. The modern UEFI Bios can be added to and grow as technology is created. The old BIOS had no idea what an NVMe drive is, it wasn't built to be expanded.

Many bios have a choice called Fast Boot that doesn't skip the steps but instead runs them all at once, to let windows have control even faster
Some have ultra fast boot that does the above but also removes access to all other USB except kb/mouse at startup to speed things along further. Downside is its hard to get into the BIOS in this mode. Often needing to reset CMOS to do it.

 

[drivinfast247]

1-Why are PSUs still cabled the way they are and not USB or something similar?
2-From the large motherboard power clip to the ones for individual components, why are they the same as they've almost ever been?
3-I get motherboards want different voltages but is there not something onboard that can distribute power properly? Do modern motherboards really need all those voltages?

1- Cables need to be a certain guage in order the safely carry the needed current.

2-Intel is working on* motherboards that take a 12v cable and have "built-in" PSU on motherboard. Sounds expensive.

3- Because they do.

1-Why have processors not really got much quicker?
2-Yes, there's more importance put on threads and cores and whatever but we seem to have stuck at 4Ghz and 8 cores now for many, many years. Are we just not able to produce something better yet?

1-They are exponentially faster than previous generations. Frequency is only a portion of what makes a CPU "fast". Increased IPC(Instructions Per Cycle) means more work is done per clock cycle.

2-We are at 5ghz or more with current gen CPUs. Also, 8 cores is pretty much the minimum core count as mainstream CPUs are getting 12+ cores plus multi-threading.

BIOS
1-Windows loads faster than what BIOS does these days but again, why haven't we created a system that has a cut down version of BIOS that doesn't need or want to check every component connected before loading the OS?

1-Enable Quick Boot

 

[Oasis Curator]

Interesting that people jumped on the USB plug... but ignored the OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.
It's as if people can't imagine there could be any other way to power a machine other than what we have...

Also, Quick Boot and whatever are fine, but they're not really instant.
Yes, compared with days gone by, computers are a lot quicker but is that it? Are we now stuck?
I press the On button on my TV and within 5 seconds, it's showing me broadcast TV. This isn't the same with my PC. We seem to be content with being stuck with a BIOS system, then Windows to load. Quicker, yes, but not really changed in the last 20 years.

Perhaps people are also comparing a top of the range CPU with a bottom of the range one from years ago.
I know things are quicker but they don't seem to be. Maybe if I'd come from an older CPU to a brand spanking new one, I'd notice more. Installing of Windows takes way less time these days, 10 minutes at best instead of 30+.

Basically, computers haven't fundamentally changed in the last 20 years.
Yes, they're faster but still work in the same way - an over sized PSU, plugging into a motherboard with a huge amount of components that seem to be present for optional use but useless to most.



Just seems a shame that people are hell bent on pointing out wrong (despite posters before already doing so) instead of thinking whether it could be better.
Maybe I just expected a bunch of innovaters here :/
Maybe I just expect more from technology than what it can give. But then I look at mobile phones and how they've developed in the last 20 years - quite a difference, no?

 

[USAFRet]

an over sized PSU, plugging into a motherboard with a huge amount of components that seem to be present for optional use but useless to most.

You want small?
An Intel NUC or Beelink. I have a Beelink as my HTPC. TIny, powerful. Small enough you could mount it on the back of a monitor.

I know things are quicker but they don't seem to be.

You want fast?
Possibly you don't remember, but ray tracing a scene used to literally take a day. A single frame.
Today, we can almost do that at 60 frames per second. (almost)

I press the On button on my TV and within 5 seconds, it's showing me broadcast TV. This isn't the same with my PC.

Apples and oranges. The PC is doing so much more.
And most TVs today aren't really shut down, even if they tell you it is. You're not coming from fully OFF.
Unplug that smart TV from the wall, and then reconnect it tomorrow. Wait while it syncs up all its services...😉

 

[little_me]

A big problem in why things are stuck at the point they are is...
backwards compatibility.
yes, people still want to and can run things from early 2000's
another reason why motherboards have all kinds of useless features like NVme slots (often 2 or 3) or network interface or sound card is convenience.
most users don't want to buy separate network card and/or sound card since motherboard one is good enough for them.

we have bigger manufacturers out there that cut out pcie ports to get motherboard to be smaller to fit into smaller case, which is good in a way but they also often in same way stop you from using discrete GPU and/or upgrading said GPU since there is no space for it.
they have also done same on PSU's with seeing "this will never use more than 250W so why put in bigger?" and optimizing that side too, getting it smaller and/or wonky shaped to fit in case better.

connectors from PSU to MB and other peripherals are tricky due to current power needs, CPU can take from 30 to 250W and PSU must be able to supply that, as was mentioned, more power needs more current which needs bigger cable.
you could circumvent that with the mentioned 12VO setup where you supply just 12V to MB and say "you figure it out" which works but.... for components with bigger power draw, it also becomes a problem.
on MB or any other PCB, the lane/trace thickness is usually quite small (to save space vertically since many PCB's have multiple layers) and so to carry more power you need to make said lanes/traces wider. This needs a lot more physical real estate on the PCB leaving less room for components.
So why do that? why not just add power plug next to memory voltage regulators and supply it from there? less room taken from PCB, PCB also heats up less and.. it's all win-win.
as already mentioned, connectors are bigger than necessary but at same time, they are usually designed so that they have key shapes in them so that you usually can't plug in wrong connector to wrong place. (modular PSU's supposedly have similarly keyed connectors so take care there) to prevent mishaps.
All this could still be done in smaller form factor but... it would also hugely impact backwards/sideways compatibility.
PSU's would have to be tied to Motherboard formfactor for right connectors (or they'd have them all and be mess of cables you didn't want) and so you'd have one for ITX, mATX, ATX and so on.

speed has gone up a LOT in 20 years, in 2000, it could take old laptop an hour (yes, 60 minutes) to boot windows. Yes, you could use it but.. who would want to if background loading was taking up 100% of cpu?
new one could boot up and be usable in two or three minutes.
now? windows is bigger, better and ever so more versatile, taking more and more into account and as such, needs WAY more processing power and checking so... while CPU is faster, it feels "not so much faster"

also comparing TV's power button (sleep, display off) to booting on computer is wrong, it's like comparing race cars where other is already at almost max speed at start line.
Also TV's as mentioned, are more specialized things, you power then on, it's broadcasts or some other video-in option or inbuilt app usage, that is about it. TV has nothing else to do.

On PC's you can do more, they can do more and OS has to assume user might do something else than browse web with default browser, look at files in file explorer or play solitaire or minesweeper.

The speed of CPU has risen, benchmarks show that, the problem is that programming has yet to use more than average number of threads available. (4 by now, I think) if even that.
so if app you use uses only one core/thread, then what matters is the GHz and IPC, extra 15 cores wont help much there, except keeping other things from taking 10 to 15% slice of the sweet cpu usage pie. Backwards compatibility kind of hurts there since modern CPU's also need to handle old things that do not know more than one core.
average thread count is pretty much what developers are aiming their things for, so that as many as possible can play/use their things. Bigger market and all that.
that draws the minimum requirement level. (usually often similar to popular gaming consoles since that market is HUGE for games.)

As for why have they not gone much past 4GHz? it's physics, higher frequency tends to not work in small scale, causes interference and so on, old single core Pentium 4's ran into this block. Going faster also needs more power to be stable, which also drew the line where you could go.
(overclocking with liquid nitrogen is another matter it's not feasible long term plan)

And back to GPU side, in my opinion, things have stagnated for last two years or three. Main reason is that huge majority of users are still fine with 1080P@60hz usage and as such, they can do all they want with 5 years old mid-line GPU (1050TI or 1650) and even play most recent games at bit reduced detail levels just fine.

now.. if you want more than that, yes.. RTX spearheaded the big speed jump but also due to other uses for GPUs (mining) the availability of them was not as good as people could want. Since average consumer doesn't have above X level GPU, developers don't aim for higher, which means most wont needs faster GPU, which slows speed gains since makers start to branch to other new things that GPU could do. Like Raytracing and/or crypto mining.
here only sub-200eur costing GPU on market in stock is pretty much ancient GT730's

mobile phones have gone forward a LOT in 20 years, no doubt. Unlike with PC's instruction sets on these were created/thought up at that point, not in 50's. and as such they are more efficient in that regard.
if you compare the basic function of "I want to call xxxx" they still work pretty much same when you compare it to 90's phone which was not smart phone.
if you compare other smart uses, there is difference which is also shown on their CPU speed benchmarks (and GPU too) but again, at their creation point, whole idea of "hey, more cores at smaller frequency use less power, lets use that to keep battery lasting longer" was already known and phone OS and apps were from get-go programmed to utilize more than one or two cores as power needs come and go.

To fix the problems you describe, one would need to throw away any and all backwards compatibility and design new things from scratch, you could use different cabling, get things done faster and all that if you just say "nope, nothing from pre-2023 works on this and also nothing from other manufacturers fit in this" (Apple vs Android vs windows phone)
but.. by now, Apple and Android are stuck enough in their ways that they can't really do drastic innovations on hardware side, their benefit is that their starting get-up already knew that multi-core/threading existed and took that into plans from the start.
in addition to being pretty much limited to smart phones.
yes, there are some laptops running android but... yeah, why have they not gotten as popular?

I think I've rambled on and on too much.

 

[Rogue Leader]

another reason why motherboards have all kinds of useless features like NVme slots (often 2 or 3) or network interface or sound card is convenience.

What pray tell is useless about having multiple slots on a motherboard that allow you to install the highest speed possible storage drive of almost any size you like, in a tiny low power completely unobtrusive format? And theres nothing a PCIe NiC will give you over onboard (unless your motherboard is cheapo and then you don't care anyway). Sound card I'll give you for features, but multiple tests have found sound quality/distortion/etc nearly identical.

we have bigger manufacturers out there that cut out pcie ports to get motherboard to be smaller to fit into smaller case, which is good in a way but they also often in same way stop you from using discrete GPU and/or upgrading said GPU since there is no space for it.

Thats called different form factors. Nothing is just arbitrarily cut. ATX, MATX and ITX are different form factors based upon the size the user wants to build the system, and PCIe slots included accordingly.

they have also done same on PSU's with seeing "this will never use more than 250W so why put in bigger?" and optimizing that side too, getting it smaller and/or wonky shaped to fit in case better.

Aftermarket PSUs in the 250w range are nearly nonexistent. SFX PSUs (the tiny ones) are widely available from 500-750w.

I'm not going to pick apart everything you said because it will take all day, but it all seems somewhat.... incorrect?

 

[Colif]

I press the On button on my TV and within 5 seconds, it's showing me broadcast TV. This isn't the same with my PC. We seem to be content with being stuck with a BIOS system, then Windows to load. Quicker, yes, but not really changed in the last 20 years.

TV all solid state. less parts. 15 seconds boot time sure beats what came before.
We have had instant start before, but people expect more from PC than what a Tandy color offered in way of features.

You going to struggle to not have a bios but its possible that an OEM bios that only runs with specific hardware (I mean, everything) and that doesn't check hardware on start, could boot almost instantly from an NVMe drive.
Most OEM Motherboards you can buy alone (not counting HP/Dell replacement motherboards) are the exact opposite of that, they made to work with as wide a hardware range as possible. Because the more they offer, the more people might buy them.

Its possible custom bios exist that don't check hardware at boot but you still going to have some delays. But its standard practice now to check the hardware at least works before handing it to an operating system.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Interesting that people jumped on the USB plug... but ignored the OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.
It's as if people can't imagine there could be any other way to power a machine other than what we have...

Your desire for a smaller connector does not replace a systems requirements for a heavy gauge wire to provide power to it. So, unless you wanted a series of "similar to USB" plugs to do the same thing the current locking plug (which is important that it locks), why bother?

Also, Quick Boot and whatever are fine, but they're not really instant.
Yes, compared with days gone by, computers are a lot quicker but is that it? Are we now stuck?
I press the On button on my TV and within 5 seconds, it's showing me broadcast TV. This isn't the same with my PC. We seem to be content with being stuck with a BIOS system, then Windows to load. Quicker, yes, but not really changed in the last 20 years.

TV processors are very basic ARM SoCs. They are specifically made to boot quickly and do the bare minimum to get you up and running. If it took 30 seconds to turn your TV on every time people would lose their minds. I agree there is room for improvement, but at this point there are plenty of machines that will have you at a login screen in 5-10 seconds, thats pretty reasonable.

Perhaps people are also comparing a top of the range CPU with a bottom of the range one from years ago.
I know things are quicker but they don't seem to be. Maybe if I'd come from an older CPU to a brand spanking new one, I'd notice more. Installing of Windows takes way less time these days, 10 minutes at best instead of 30+.

30 Minutes? It used to take HOURS to install Windows. And no we aren't comparing top with bottom. How it "seems" to you is not a valid unit of measure. There are valid tests that show that current processors can do orders of magnitude more in a shorter time than processors that are even just 5 years old. Just because the Ghz numbers are the same is meaningless. Thats like saying a 1978 Ferrari 308 is just as quick as a 2022 Ferrari 488 Pista because both can do 180mph. The 2022 Ferrari will get there in less than half the time.

Basically, computers haven't fundamentally changed in the last 20 years.
Yes, they're faster but still work in the same way - an over sized PSU, plugging into a motherboard with a huge amount of components that seem to be present for optional use but useless to most.

I can somewhat agree here, the basics of building an x86 based PC are prettymuch the same. But thats partially due to things like backward compatibility and because its a platform standard. The reason we have so many different pieces of hardware out there is due to those standards. As for the huge amount of motherboard components, can you elaborate? Because thats just not true. I will say there are a lot of features programmed into chipsets that are worthless to many (like RAID), but there are few if any extraneous components on a motherboard.

Just seems a shame that people are hell bent on pointing out wrong (despite posters before already doing so) instead of thinking whether it could be better.
Maybe I just expected a bunch of innovaters here :/
Maybe I just expect more from technology than what it can give. But then I look at mobile phones and how they've developed in the last 20 years - quite a difference, no?

You asked for opinions WHY from people who know about these things, this is the answers you will get. You presented ideas of how it could be better, and people who understand this stuff answered as to why it won't work. Stomping your feet and being angry about it won't make the answers more what you want.

Mobile phones have changed quite a bit, they are also a closed non-upgradeable ecosystem, with a finite lifespan (now that batteries are basically non-removeable). They also use massively different CPUs. There have been computers created based upon these, but they haven't caught on because in the end they don't have the power and flexibility of a PC, and thats what people actually want once you dig in to an application beyond the curated experience of a mobile phone.

 

[little_me]

Okay, I knew I was yet again unclear, It is a common and really bad habit of mine.

What pray tell is useless about having multiple slots on a motherboard that allow you to install the highest speed possible storage drive of almost any size you like, in a tiny low power completely unobtrusive format? And theres nothing a PCIe NiC will give you over onboard (unless your motherboard is cheapo and then you don't care anyway). Sound card I'll give you for features, but multiple tests have found sound quality/distortion/etc nearly identical.

I know that, as I said, it's convenience. OP poster was going on about why things were staying same, I was mentioning things about WHY they stay same.
I use NVme drive, it's fast, I like it.
I also use onboard sound card, it's good enough for me, they were lot worse than discrete 20 years ago.

all these options that are not necessarily used (some use them, some do not) however draw power or can draw power if used. the cabling from PSU to MB must take the maximum possible amount specs allow into account.
remove all optionals, power draw drops drastically. namely it was what? 75W for each 16xPCI-E port?

smaller form factor Motherboards if you want smaller power connectors could thus skimp on the connector size and wire gauge and all that and do away with their own connectors, which would work too. Except it'd wreck compatibility with other hardware. (wrecking compatibility is not a good thing.)

Thats called different form factors. Nothing is just arbitrarily cut. ATX, MATX and ITX are different form factors based upon the size the user wants to build the system, and PCIe slots included accordingly.

And I've seen motherboards (big OEM brands) where they have literally not soldered 16x PCI-E slots in, it's otherwise same motherboard as from manufacturer.

which in turn allows them to limit max power draw since you can't plug anything in there and get away with smaller/cheaper PSU with their own power connectors. (although this is likely so that you can only buy their replacement parts)


And again, said things are done for reasons. if you want convenience and compatability of "I want to swap X or Y" then OEM might not be for you.
It could give you smaller than standard ATX24 plug (and one less CPU power plug, depends on build) on Motherboard though, what OP was kind of asking about.

If you want to be able to expand, plug things in and keep going, that is not the way to go though. There is a reason why current ATX PSU's are so widely used.

Again, sorry for being unclear, although I suspect above could still fit in unclear definition.

 

[Rogue Leader]

And I've seen motherboards (big OEM brands) where they have literally not soldered 16x PCI-E slots in, it's otherwise same motherboard as from manufacturer.

which in turn allows them to limit max power draw since you can't plug anything in there and get away with smaller/cheaper PSU with their own power connectors. (although this is likely so that you can only buy their replacement parts)

Are you saying there are OEM brands putting slots that do nothing on full size boards? Because thats not true at all. What I have seen are 16x size slots that are wired for only 2.0 4x or 8x lanes, and thats due to the fact they are cheap boards with chipsets that do not support as many PCIe Lanes. The rest of your statement is right, but its due to a technical limitaion, which has the side effect of limiting power draw, but when building a cheaper low end system on a cheaper low end board, its unlikely you'll be sticking 2 PCIe 4.0 16x cards in it. So its superflouos anyway.

If you want to be able to expand, plug things in and keep going, that is not the way to go though. There is a reason why current ATX PSU's are so widely used.

I understand what you're saying but your post was worded as if you agree that this stuff is excess and useless, when in reality its a fundamental part of the system of being able to expand and upgrade. I can tell you understand that but it very much didn't come across that way.

 

[little_me]

Are you saying there are OEM brands putting slots that do nothing on full size boards? Because thats not true at all. What I have seen are 16x size slots that are wired for only 2.0 4x or 8x lanes, and thats due to the fact they are cheap boards with chipsets that do not support as many PCIe Lanes. The rest of your statement is right, but its due to a technical limitaion, which has the side effect of limiting power draw, but when building a cheaper low end system on a cheaper low end board, its unlikely you'll be sticking 2 PCIe 4.0 16x cards in it. So its superflouos anyway.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Well, I'm saying board has a spot for the slot but slot has not been soldered in. Why? because said piece of plastic with connectors costs them 0.001 each or something?
Googling for images of them is seemingly hard but.. I found one of older (LG775) board. there is a place for slot but no soldered stuff there.
for both memory and PCI and a LOT of other options.

and other more recent for LGA1150

and one more from HP

 

[Rogue Leader]

Yes, that is what I am saying. Well, I'm saying board has a spot for the slot but slot has not been soldered in. Why? because said piece of plastic with connectors costs them 0.001 each or something?
Googling for images of them is seemingly hard but.. I found one of older (LG775) board. there is a place for slot but no soldered stuff there.
for both memory and PCI and a LOT of other options.

and other more recent for LGA1150

and one more from HP

Got it, yes I've seen that. I mistook you to mean brands like ASUS, MSI etc putting dummy slots on.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Interesting that people jumped on the USB plug... but ignored the OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.
It's as if people can't imagine there could be any other way to power a machine other than what we have...

Because there's nothing to fix here and trying to push a new standard when there are perfectly adequate ones just increases costs and makes your device useless when the manufacturer decides to axe it. But if you want USB powered computers, there are plenty of options from laptops (my Dell XPS 13 takes power from USB-C), to hobbyist single board computers like the Raspberry Pi, to well, your smartphone.

Also, Quick Boot and whatever are fine, but they're not really instant.
Yes, compared with days gone by, computers are a lot quicker but is that it? Are we now stuck?
I press the On button on my TV and within 5 seconds, it's showing me broadcast TV. This isn't the same with my PC. We seem to be content with being stuck with a BIOS system, then Windows to load. Quicker, yes, but not really changed in the last 20 years.

I can "turn on" my PC and get up and running within 5 seconds too. It's called "putting the computer in sleep mode." Also, how fast your TV comes up depends on the TV. If you have a "dumb" TV, there's no OS to load, no BIOS to go through, etc. So it's not exactly apples to oranges here. But if it is a smart TV, those TVs actually go to sleep when you "turn it off." I occasionally turn off my TV by turning the surge protector off and when I turn it back on again, it takes about a minute for the TV to actually boot up and become usable because it's running an OS.

Basically, computers haven't fundamentally changed in the last 20 years.
Yes, they're faster but still work in the same way - an over sized PSU, plugging into a motherboard with a huge amount of components that seem to be present for optional use but useless to most.

The desktop computer works on a standard. And a lot of people are deluded into think they need that extra stuff "just in case" even though they'll never use it. But in any case, there are other standards that aren't "oversized" or "huge". Ever consider a Mini-ITX based system with an SFX power supply?

Just seems a shame that people are hell bent on pointing out wrong (despite posters before already doing so) instead of thinking whether it could be better.

Because the points you made already exist, already in the works, or in the end wasn't really worth it for some reason or another.

Maybe I just expected a bunch of innovaters here :/
Maybe I just expect more from technology than what it can give. But then I look at mobile phones and how they've developed in the last 20 years - quite a difference, no?

Desktops and laptops have existed for decades. We've had a lot of time to figure out what actually works and what doesn't. Plus innovations are expensive gambles. It takes a lot of money to break through what's been established. And said innovations have to solve a problem in such a way that makes life easier without too many nagging drawbacks.

For instance, the last time I saw someone try to do something innovative on the desktop as a proof-of-concept was Razer's Project Christine. But you have to ask, what problem is it trying to solve? Making components easier to install and swap? I mean sure, that's nice and all but who's this really targeting?

• Consumers don't care because they don't tend to upgrade their components anyway, outside of maybe adding more RAM or storage. And even then, they'll likely have a tech savvy friend who can do it for them.
• DIYers don't care because well, they know how to swap components.
• Businesses and whatnot with their own IT department won't care because their IT team knows how to swap components.

And then there's the cost to conform to something like this. Instead of compartmentalizing the system, you're now compartmentalizing each part. This can actually cause limitations and stifle innovation because well, you have to conform to the whatever's allowed for each part. If parts could be whatever they want (within reason), then it's much less to worry about.

Innovation also does not need to come in sweeping changes. For example, I consider NVIDIA's cooling design on the FE versions of the RTX 30 series innovative because it provides better airflow and solves the problem that a lot of video card coolers simply circulate the air around the bottom half of the case. And AIBs have taken notes by putting holes in the PCBs to allow air to flow through the card rather than on it, increasing overall airflow.

Or if we want to go elsewhere, USB and PCIe. USB solved the problem of corralling all of the ports we used to have into a simple package without much cost or drawbacks to anyone. Similarly PCIe solved the problem of avoiding the need to have separate expansion card formats for high-bandwidth cards and low-bandwidth cards. In addition it solved a headache with conventional PCI by not having a shared bus.

And looking at mobile devices, there's nothing actually new or innovative about what happened with them, at least as far as specs are concerned. Every "innovation" in mobile parts is simply because the silicon process has gotten good enough to allow features that have existed on desktops and laptops for years (if not decades) with minimal power consumption increases. Otherwise, from a higher level, smartphone hardware hasn't really changed much in the past 10 years. The smartphone has been the same plastic/glass/steel slab with a screen. And while sure, there are things I would consider technologies like under-screen finger print readers and foldable screens innovative, but those don't have much of a place in desktops or laptops to begin with.

You're more than welcome to throw out more suggestions, but don't be surprised or upset that those suggestions get shot down for some reason or another.