Is it true that CPU from 2012 is 3 times faster than CPU from 2008?
 

Some was saying to me in e-mail that CPU from 2012 is 3 times faster than CPU from 2008?

If so that seems very low.I thought it would be 5 to 8 times faster.

If only 3 times faster from 2008 to 2012 that seems very very very slow and CPU are hitting a brick wall and in 5 to 10 years may come to stop with not being any faster at all.

Well, it would depend on the CPU. CPUs running at the same clock speeds certainly are not 5-8 times faster with the same number of cores, nor do I think they are even 3 times "faster". CPUs now are not running any "faster" than they were 10 years ago, in raw gigahertz, they are just much more parrallel, have faster buses, and more cores. There is an absolute limit to how much you can scale down and speed up silicon technology. The focus in recent years has been scaling down die size and reducing power requirements.

Didn't we had this speed issue in one of your previous threads? Without specifying the used CPU models and which benchmark was used this discussion doesn't make any sense, and this was already explained to you. Having said that, if you choose a 2012 CPU like the Atom N2600 and a 2012 CPU like the Core i7-3960X you will find many benchmarks that will show that the Core i7 is more than 3 times faster. If you compare the same Atom N2600 with the 2008 Phenom II X4 or the Core2Quad 9550 you will find that those older CPUs also are faster.

Re-read your old thread about CPU speed and benchmarks.

So that mesee if I understand what you saying. A 2012 CPU Atom N2600 and 2012 CPU Core i7-3960X it be 3 times faster. And Atom N2600 2012 to 2008 Phenom II X4 or the Core2Quad 9550 are also 3 times faster?

So some CPU from 2012 will be 3 times faster than other CPU from 2008 and some even more than 3 times faster? So some CPU from 2012 can be 5 to 7 times faster than other CPU from 2008.

You didn't understand at all and that makes me wonder if you have understood the last thread you opened regarding a similar topic.

So let us recapitulate what we told you in the last thread first:

1. You can't say: This CPU is 3 times faster than that CPU because it totally depends on the Benchmark you use.
2. You can't say: A 2008 CPU is 3 times slower than a 2012 CPU without stating which CPUs exactly you compare and which benchmarks you use (see point one).
3. You can't say that there has to be a certain amount per year that CPUs have to be faster. This does not correspond with Intel's or AMD's development model.

So now let us recapitulate what I have said in my previous post:
1. If you compare the 2012 Atom N2600 ( a low end mobile CPU where low power consumption is a key factor) with the 2012 Core i7-3960X (a high-end CPU where power consumption plays no role at all) you will find that in some benchmarks the Core i7 will be more than 4 times faster than the Atom. This says nothing about past or future CPUs and their performance in general.
2. If you compare the 2012 Atom from above with a 2008 high-end CPU like the Phenom II 940 or the Core2Quad Q9550 you will find that the 2008 CPUs are faster than the 2012 CPU. That says nothing about past or future CPUs in general.
3. Let us add one, compare a 2008 Atom N270 with the 2012 Core i7-3960X and you will find that in some benchmarks the Core i7 will be about 10-12 times faster. Again, this says nothing about past and future CPUs in general.

So let us now go to the statements you made (or have gotten from an email):
1. The general statement that 2012 CPUs are 3 times faster than 2008 CPUs makes no sense without stating which CPUs you compare and which benchmarks you use for the comparison.
2. The general statement that CPUs are hitting a brickwall is not valid, because point 1 is a non-valid statement.
3. The general statement that CPUs may stop becoming faster in 5-10 years is illogical. Assumed CPUs would become faster by factor 3 in 4 years this would mean that we would have CPUs that are 3 times faster in 2016, 9 times faster in 2020, 27 times faster in 2024 and so on. You would have to compare with more and older CPUs to get knowledge about a general trend. If you would do that you would see that there are times where the CPU speed increases slower over time and there are times when the CPU speed increases faster over time (with sometimes even making more or less jumps, for example with the first and second generation of the Core2 technology).

Moore's law is, by and large, still holding up, so generally speaking, A CPU created now using the equivalent technology and the equivalent resources that were available 3 years ago would, by and large, be 2x2 times faster and/or more efficient. It is, however, impossible to make a "like for like" comparison, since what is new and available now wasn't possible three years ago.

EDIT: By "equivalent" I mean suitably enhanced to allow for progression.

So that me understand the reason I cannot get proper reply is there is too much at play with CPU . You saying some 2008 CPU are faster than some CPU today 2012 and some 2012 CPU are only 10% to 12% times faster and well other CPU may be 3 or 4 times faster .

And the reason people are saying this CPU is fast than this CPU is this fast is there is too much at play .

So some 2008 and 2009 CPU may be 2 or 3 times faster than some 2012 CPU and some 2012 CPU may be 10% faster to 2 times faster than other 2008 and 2009 CPU ?

If so why does intel and AMD do this? why is CPU not linear growth like 20% faster every year or 2 times faster every 4 or 5 years? Why does intel and AMD make it so mix match and so hard to understand.

Why is not linear growth with making better CPU every year?

Not one time in my posts I mentioned a percentage. When I speak of 10-12 times faster then I mean 10-12 times, not 10-12%.

Do you really think they do it intentionally? That they say: Hey, this new CPU would be 30% faster than the one from last year, we have to make it 10% slower? Or that they say: Hey, we are only up to 15% speed increase, we can't release this until we are at 20%?
This is how technology goes, they have to find ways to make their CPUs faster, they have to invent things and they have have to have a look at other factors as well, like power-consumption (the major drawback with the Netburst architecture of the Pentium 4, that was planned to go up to 10GHz clockspeed but hit the power-consumption wall at 4GHz and therefor had to be replaced with a different architecture). A big part of this is not only to create new CPUs, they also have to come up with ways to actually build those CPUs. The structures on the CPU dies have to get smaller to be able to become more complex within the same size (to hold the prices), this is also not an easy thing. Producing new CPUs is much more complex as you seem to think.

All CPUs from the major players are built using an unreliable manufacturing method. It's probable that two CPUs, built from the same silicon, on the same production line within seconds of each other will exhibit different characteristics and tolerances.

The manufacturer goes on to test the CPUs, and they are graded according to those tests. One of them may be top grade, passing all tests at the highest frequencies in which case they will be sold as such, performing better than lesser models. Some may fail tests at the highest frequencies, and as such will be sold only at the level of reliability that the tests prove them to have.

It is highly probable in such a scenario that even of 2nd and 3rd generation models, some will test with inferior specs to the preceding model, and therefore be outperformed by the best of the earlier generation.

The manufacturer is in the business of making money, and as such they aren't simply going to junk the lower graded components. Instead, they will sell then, at a reduced specification and price as such.

It is possible, owing to the laws of supply and demand, for high grade products to be rebranded as lower grade, which is why you can buy a (relatively) inexpensive model that will perform as well as the highest grade. It's simply because it IS the highest grade, but not enough lower grade appeared to fulfil demand.

Yes but you said Quote You can't say that there has to be a certain amount per year that CPUs have to be faster. This does not correspond with Intel's or AMD's development model.
Quote


So that means you cannot say CPU is 20% faster every year or 2 times faster every 4 to 5 years or I would got simple answer with same answer so in other words there too much at play that CPU from 2008 to 2012 may be anywhere from 10% faster to 5 times faster to other times 2012 CPU being slower.In other words intel or AMD does not make linear growth it is mix match some being slower and some faster and all over the place some 10% faster and some 4 times faster so avarage person on the street are going to understand .

So some 2008 and 2009 CPU may be 2 to 3 times faster than some 2012 CPU and some 2012 CPU may be 10% faster or 3 times faster thus reply Quote You can't say that there has to be a certain amount per year that CPUs have to be faster. This does not correspond with Intel's or AMD's development model.
Quote

If so I understand than this thread is meaningless than with out comparing the two CPU models has it does work that way that every year CPU is 20% faster or 2 or 3 times faster every 4 years has it is mix match of speed at all levels some new CPU faster and some new CPU slower

Now you got it.

Core speed, yes CPUs aren't much faster now.
It does seem that the maximum speed has been approached for the processors we own, though maybe lower voltage will out.
I recall your posts though, nec207, and I'm not sure I ever understood your question.
I know the CPU and GPU I bought last week both outshine their predecessors in both efficiency and results.

So why does intel and AMD bring out CPU every year at different levels and not linear growth ? Even if there is engineering problems that they cannot be 40% faster every year than some years if there is engineering problems it may be 20% faster than .

Why does intel and AMD bring out CPU every year at different levels . Tell a person on street better do you home work warning this CPU 2012 may be 20% faster than 2008 CPU and other 2012 CPU 3 times faster than 2008 CPU and if that not enough do your home work some 2008 CPU are faster than some 2012 CPU.

Than there is a misconception with public that CPU speed is linear growth.

I bought a CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU the other day. This machine is faster, cooler (temperature), more power efficient and quieter.
Newer CPUs tailor the instruction sets and make more efficient use of what they have.
The GPU and GPU in this thing are just ordinary parts but such that I could run my old system four times on this system and not slow down.

Because they can't do it with linear growth.

And that is the exact opposite of linear, so actually you answered your question yourself.

As said above, because it is impossible to do it in a linear way.

Even the person from the street would not expect a 2012 CPU for 30$ to be 3 times faster than a 2008 CPU for 300$. And they don't do it. People that are not interested to inform themselves about CPU speed have a different approach to buy computers. They just expect the 500$ PC they buy now to be significant faster than the 500$ PC they bought in 2008. They are not interested in absolute numbers.

I would rather think that this is not a public misconception, it is your misconception. People are not interested in absolute numbers, they don't care if there is a linear growth, they expect computers to be fast enough to do there every day task in a reasonable way. Not one "average computer buyer" goes to a store and expects the new computer to be exactly 3 times faster than the old one. They just expect that it is fast enough for the tasks they want to do with their 2012 software, in the same way the 2008 computer was fast enough to do that with 2008 software.

Yes but they release at different levels of speed some slower and some faster every year .A linear growth would be 2013 CPU's cannot be slower or same has 2012 CPU's no better X % faster.

The fact some 2008 CPU;s are faster than 2012 CPU;s and some 2012 CPU;s are oly 20% faster and other 2012 CPU;s 3 or 4 times faster means it is not linear growth .

Again, you can not compare 2012 30$ CPUs with 2008 300$ (or more) CPUs that doesn't make sense at all.

You answer does not answer the above post .

Also if there was linear growth that say new CPU every year is 20% faster that means that 2008 300$ will be so old no one will want it .Has 2012 CPU would than be 100% faster .

But I think part problem that not forcing linear growth is every year intel and AMD brings out CPU in price range of $20 to $4,000 and that may explain why the speed levels are all over the place every year than say no we do linear growth and new CPU cost $500 and we do not have any thing cheaper than that.

This is no problem, this is called marketing. There are tasks that don't need a 500$ CPU. No one would buy a 500$ CPU for office tasks or a HTPC. It doesn't make sense at all to just have one 500$ CPU from so many points of view that I just don't know how to answer to this nonsense.

So CPU speed is all over place do to price problem than engineering problems .So if everyone was rich than it be linear growth .

If intel and AMD was like apple with mac with their marketing plan than it be linear growth forcing people with linear growth . Like with Apple there model is to take old computer out of store ASAP and give you new one . If apple had intel and AMD marketing plan than anyone can go to apple store and get old conputer one year old for $500.

So in other words intel and AMD marketing is not about linear growth and doing away with older CPU speeds but giving people option of speed and price they pay for older CPU.

So intel today like AMD still sale today these old 2008 and 2009 CPU for poor people but re-sale it with new box and cheaper than doing away with it and say to the people you have no choice ?

Sorry but I think it is intel and AMD marketing I'm confused about.

No. Even rich people don't need 500$ CPUs in their office PCs. And they don't want them in their netbooks if they want to achieve long battery runtimes.

No. Apple has different computers in different price classes. A Mac mini is about 600€ here in Germany, the Mac Pros begin with 2600€. Even Apple knows that different price classes are necessary.

Partly. You do not have to buy an older CPU. You can go for cheap AMD FX4000 or Intel Core i3 CPUs or for more expensive AMD FX8000 or Intel Core i7 CPUs. The CPUs do not have to be older to be cheaper, they are just made for a difference performance-class (and therefore price-class).

Again no. As stated above, the current Core i3 and AMD FX4000 CPUs are state of the art, not old CPUs for poor people.
Of course you can still buy older CPUs, but they a) do not necessarily have to be cheaper and b) are not sold by AMD/Intel (and not part of their marketing plan), but by retailers that have them still in stock.

I don't think so. I think what you don't get is that there are different CPUs for different purposes in different price classes. It doesn't make sense to put a 500$ high performance CPU in a netbook, you wouldn't be able to cool that thing and the battery would last only 10 minutes. Besides the fact that nobody would buy such an overpriced and useless thing. You also wouldn't put a 20$ netbook CPU in a high performance computer that is used for number-crunching.

Fine than if e-mail and internet is there thing use computer from 1992. I want fast computer for my money even I'm going use it or not.

I don't want old computer even if all thing is for e-mail and internet.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote No. Apple has different computers in different price classes. A Mac mini is about 600€ here in Germany, the Mac Pros begin with 2600€. Even Apple knows that different price classes are necessary.Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No apple buys in bulk and locks the price to new pruduct line rolls out and take old computers out of the store ASAP when new one rolls out.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Partly. You do not have to buy an older CPU. You can go for cheap AMD FX4000 or Intel Core i3 CPUs or for more expensive AMD FX8000 or Intel Core i7 CPUs. The CPUs do not have to be older to be cheaper, they are just made for a difference performance-class (and therefore price-class). Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean telling me to get mid range CPU?




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Again no. As stated above, the current Core i3 and AMD FX4000 CPUs are state of the art, not old CPUs for poor people.
Of course you can still buy older CPUs, but they a) do not necessarily have to be cheaper and b) are not sold by AMD/Intel (and not part of their marketing plan), but by retailers that have them still in stock.Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Than this is what I do not understand intel is not just in businesses of making fast CPU they are in businesses making new CPU for people tight on money.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote I don't think so. I think what you don't get is that there are different CPUs for different purposes in different price classes. It doesn't make sense to put a 500$ high performance CPU in a netbook, you wouldn't be able to cool that thing and the battery would last only 10 minutes. Besides the fact that nobody would buy such an overpriced and useless thing. You also wouldn't put a 20$ netbook CPU in a high performance computer that is used for number-crunching.Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it do I;m thinking some think like moore's law that is linear growth that goes every 2 years but does not been it going be 2 times faster every 2 years .

Where in fact it is not in intel or AMD marketing plan at all that it going to be linear growth with CPU every year but in businesses of making very high, high,low and mid range CPU's every year

Please read this loud and carefully, before I answer to the post above:
A low cost CPU does not have to be old. The Atom N2600 is from 2012, nonetheless is it a low cost CPU. IT IS NOT OLD. BUT IT IS CHEAP.
Also, please use the quote function of the forum, that makes your posts much more readable.

Now to your post:
You still don't get it. You want a fast CPU in a netbook? Fine, if you want to shut it down every two minutes because it overheats then build something like that. Also, you will have a battery life of about 10 minutes. But at least it are fast 10 minutes (if you don't count the time were the machine shuts down because it overheats).
Again, cheap is not the same as old.

Again, cheap is not old. A Mac mini for 600€ does not have to be older than a 2600€ Mac Pro, they have different purposes and therefore different price classes. A Mac mini with the CPU from the Mac Pro would shut down after a few minutes because of overheating.

No, I don't. All I wanted to say with that was: Cheap is not the same as old. There are cheap new CPUs on the market.

Exactly, Intel makes CPUs for all price classes and for different purposes. And that has nothing to do with people being tight on money. If someone buys a netbook he wants small size and low power consumption, so that the battery lasts long. Such low power CPUs can be produced very cheap. Therefore netbooks are cheap.

Moore's law has nothing to do with speed. And it doesn't apply at all here. My 2010 Phenom II six core CPU will outperform any 2012 Core i3 CPU. Because they have different performance classes. Age and Moore's law doesn't play any role in that.

Forget about the linear growth. there is no such thing. Even if you look at Moore's law, it talks about the number of transistors. Complexity, not speed.

Good grief!!!

Let's change the subject: What is the definition of "resolution" in a digital camera? Will a 16MP camera make a picture twice as good as an 8MP model?

Does Moore's law apply to digital cameras?

Why do cars not improve fuel efficiency by a set amount every year?
Why do farmers not increase crop yields by a set amount every year?
Why does my favourite rugby team not increase the number of points they score by a set amount every year?

Give one example of any piece of technology that is improved by an arbitrary amount in an arbitrary time span each and every time. Improvements are made when they can be, not according to a calendar. I have no idea from where you get the idea that people can decide exactly how much something will be improved and how often. Either your perception of how the universe works is grossly skewed or this thread is feeding time in the troll's lair. You are lucky TobiSGD has the patience for this.

That's weird, some other members here call me ill-tempered.

Ill-tempered? Your patience in this thread has been amazing. I would have given up after the OP's second or third post.

Okay you have a point here.






Bingo so that the problem I was not understanding there are CPUs for all price classes that is why there so many CPU's a different speeds and thus start thread with out comparing models you not going get a proper reply thus is no rule a CPU from 2012 from 2008 is 3 times faster.




Yes but this where me and some other posters do not understand it. It is Moore's law the number of transistors count go up every 2 years and it was intel CEO that said every 18 months transistors count and faster . And the media not understand it .


That the thing my head was was wrapped up thinking CPU growth was linear growth some thing like Moore's law not understanding there are CPUs for all price classes and heat and battery issues that is why there so many CPU's a different speeds and thus start thread can not get proper reply do to you have to be comparing models .

I think now you got it.

Most people get a clue from the fact that different computer models have different processor speeds (faster = more expensive), different size hard drives (larger = more expensive), different CPUs (some expensive and some cheap).;)

Yes but for some reason I thought CPU growth was linear growth by 20% faster every year or some number like that more less and that is not intel or AMD marketing plan at all.Like TobiSGD was saying intel and AMD marketing is CPUs for all price classes and other things like heat and battery issues .

I think it is Moore's law and intel CEO that got me confused here saying every 18 months transistors count and faster CPU thus some how I got in my head every year CPU are % faster.

And not understanding intel and AMD marketing is CPUs for all price classes and other things like heat and battery issues thus why some CPU made today 2012 may be only 20% faster than CPU of 2008 and other CPU 2012 may be 2 or 3 times faster of CPU of 2008 and yes some CPU of 2008 are faster than some 2012 CPU

Not understanding do to the intel and AMD marketing is CPUs for all price classes and other thinks like heat and battery issues and this means you get CPU every year at all levels of speed.