Originally Posted by ecs
The problem begins with Intel, IMHO: they're so worried on power efficiency that every new processor just adds about a 10% performance boost over the previous generation. While the (integrated) GPUs seem to be progressing, the new CPUs are a shame. How would you be interested on a new computer if it doesn't at least _double_ the performance of your older computer? (as it was usual in the past)
There's need for powerful computers. Emulators such as MAME or MESS need powerful new CPUs for emulating recent arcades or recent consoles. Last generation raytracers and unbiased renderers take a day to complete a render on current hardware. New videogames need GPUs that just cannot fit inside an iPad. So, new computers are needed. But new computers that double or triple previous performance, not the jokes that Intel is releasing.
I find this to be a horrible comment.
First off, processors today are not like yesterday. A 2 fold increase in a single core 500Mhz processor is less than a 10% bump in a quad core processor clocked at 3.6ghz.
Second, the market is all about portability now. Smartphones and tablets are killing PCs for those who never really needed one in the first place. Getting better battery life is very important.
Third, not everyone needs 2x more power. The high end professionals do; however, they will simply have to deal with Intel's approach to the market. I think it is the best approach. I like Intel processors, I am willing to pay the premium for their processor over AMD's. It seems like all the AMD PC's I have used have been pathetic. My quad-core 15'' retina runs amazing, true some of that is the SSD, but when doing simulations, the processor power shows.
Next, the gaming market is a relatively small market and shrinking due to tablets (except diehards). I walk around BestBuy from time to time to learn the maket (people ask me to recommend products for them). It is hard to find a laptop with a stand alone GPU. People just don't need this crap. It is unlikely I will ever buy a laptop without a stand alone GPU (unless Intel actually manages to pass up Nvidia (doubt it)), but I am far from the average user.
But a 10% bump is what you can expect going into the future, processors just really aren't a big bottleneck at the moment and it will be harder to double the performance of a quad-core at 3.6ghz every year. Especially with the death of the desktop in consumer homes. People want 10 hour battery life. Consumers just use web browsers and other low processor demanding programs.
Intel wants to make a CPU and GPU that can power a laptop very well and help people decide they would rather that over a tablet. Not too many people need that GPU from AMD or Nvidia. They watch movies and play simple games. Look at all the low-end junk computers that run for 400 bucks selling at BB.
Just remember, a 30-50% savings in power, and a 10% bump in speed is what the general market wanted.
Get used to it.