We are spoiled by the Mhz

[MCS]

Think about it.

The Athlon core speed rose so quickly that it forced Intel to release their P4 early. Since then the two companies have been locked into a fierce power race, with one or the other occasionally nudging the lead. Prices have been driven down, there are chipsets/RAM coming from every direction, every month sees a new Mhz bump for each chip it seems.

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

I wonder where it will all end.

This is not supposed to be an AMD vs Intel thread.

 

[ai42]

Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz?

I think thats rather extreme. Most people who buy into the VERY latest technology either have all kinds of money to burn, or are just reguler people buying a Nice 3Ghz Gateway.

For the most part I don't see too many Anandtechers as the early adopters. As we for the most part understand the computer industry very well. And When the 3ghz comes out the 2.4ghz is at a nice price, and is 3x cheaper.

As far as needing that kind of speed, the obvious answer is games. 3D Mark 2003 shows this, even top rate systems are getting bad framerates on some of that stuff (of crouse it has has been pointed out there are issues with the benchmark itself) but it does show there is always a need for a faster system for the latest and greatest.

Lately I've been seeing people upgrading from ~1ghz Athlon systems to new 2000+ XPs with a new video card etc which is a very worthwhile upgrade.

 

[dullard]

I tend to disagree with most of what you said.

1) Moore's law so far has held pretty well. This was true before AMD was a real competitor and it was also true after AMD was a real competitor. Thus there is no noticible change in the speed that processors were released. None. So if Intel did not change their pace of releasing new chips, then your first point is a bit rediculous. Yes eventually Moore's law will fail - but so far it is working quite well.
2) Prices were the highest ever when AMD had the best competing product ($1299 was the price of AMD's top chip when it clearly was faster than Intel's top chip). So if as you say competition caused the price drops, why did prices go up when AMD did their best? Instead prices didn't start dropping until the economy crashed. Since then the economy is slowly doing better and prices have slowly risen.
3) AMD has had 18 new product annoucements in the last 45 months (I didn't bother counting back any further). That is just a bit faster than one new chip per quarter. As far as I know Intel has almost always been about one new chip per quarter as well. That is a bit slower than your 1 per month estimate. You are right about chipsets and RAM though.
4) It will all end when people feel they don't need any more speed and stop buying new computers. A ton of people (and businesses) bought computers right before the Y2K thing. Top CPU's were about 750 MHz then and reasonably priced CPUs were at 600 MHz. 600 MHz is plenty for most uses - office applications and internet. No wonder after Y2k there was the first computer sales slump ever. These people and businesses are still pretty happy with their ~600 MHz computers. You are right that these people don't NEED 2 GHz or faster chips. But there are other people in the world as well: extreme gamers, scientists solving problems, businesses running servers, workers running CAD, etc who all NEED far more than even 3 GHz can offer. So for these people we need ~10 GHz chips. After that I think most of them won't need much faster for quite a while (unless some spectacular new use is developed).

Note: I'm not doing an AMD biased thread even though I mentioned their name a lot (it just is much easier to find the relavant AMD info online).

 

[vegetation]

Not for me. I want to play Sim City 4 at a decent speed and I cannot do that with a 2.8GHz setup. I want a faster system and I'll pay for it! Also, Sim City designers even stated they had to withhold a lot of game factors because current processors are just too slow. I'll savor the day when Sim City 5 comes out optimized for 10GHz processors!

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: MCS
Think about it.

The Athlon core speed rose so quickly that it forced Intel to release their P4 early. Since then the two companies have been locked into a fierce power race, with one or the other occasionally nudging the lead. Prices have been driven down, there are chipsets/RAM coming from every direction, every month sees a new Mhz bump for each chip it seems.

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

I wonder where it will all end.

This is not supposed to be an AMD vs Intel thread.

I categoricaly disagree! That's like saying the Model A Ford was sufficient so why continue developing and releasing new models yearly/semi-yearly. This technology is in its infancy and what we are using now will be the "Model A" of comp. tec. withing a very short time!

 

[Baronz]

Originally posted by: MCS
Think about it.

The Athlon core speed rose so quickly that it forced Intel to release their P4 early. Since then the two companies have been locked into a fierce power race, with one or the other occasionally nudging the lead. Prices have been driven down, there are chipsets/RAM coming from every direction, every month sees a new Mhz bump for each chip it seems.

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

I wonder where it will all end.

This is not supposed to be an AMD vs Intel thread.

More for me then

 

[Baronz]

Originally posted by: MCS
Think about it.

The Athlon core speed rose so quickly that it forced Intel to release their P4 early. Since then the two companies have been locked into a fierce power race, with one or the other occasionally nudging the lead. Prices have been driven down, there are chipsets/RAM coming from every direction, every month sees a new Mhz bump for each chip it seems.

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

I wonder where it will all end.

This is not supposed to be an AMD vs Intel thread.

More for me then

 

[giocopiano]

When computers were appropriately expensive, they were justified for business and scientific reasons.
Nowadays they are so dirt cheap that any moron working in a summer holiday can put a supercomputer together themselves.
It's no surprise then that the entertainment industry and idle one-upmanship drives speed on now.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: ai42
I think thats rather extreme. Most people who buy into the VERY latest technology either have all kinds of money to burn, or are just reguler people buying a Nice 3Ghz Gateway.

For the most part I don't see too many Anandtechers as the early adopters. As we for the most part understand the computer industry very well. And When the 3ghz comes out the 2.4ghz is at a nice price, and is 3x cheaper.

I have a problem with both of these sentences.

First off, I think ATers (and people who post to internet hardware forums in general) actually update more often than others. I see people all the time in B&Ms that clearly don't know what they're doing buying 9000 Pro's and being promised the latest in gaming technology by the store people. The only people that would pay $300 for a piece of hardware would be people who know the benefits of it.

Secondly, please don't mention the words "nice" and "Gateway" in the same sentence again.

 

[DaMutha]

I for one have a disorder that causes me to become obsessed with new technology and the need to have it. While I have occasional moments of lucidity that allow me to exit from the checkout screen before submitting it, I invariably find myself printing off the order confirmation about 3 days later.

In sum, I am a tech company's dream come true.

 

[Maverick]

gamers won't be happy until we have "holodecks". Once we reach that you'll see Moore's law slow down quite a bit as the demand comes down.

 

[Eug]

The only people that would pay $300 for a piece of hardware would be people who know the benefits of it.

Quite untrue. People all the time buy high-end $$$ computers to run Word, people they don't know any better.

Indeed, I'm a tinkerer, yet I still run a Celeron 1.4 on BX with Radeon 7200 (which will eventually be updated to a 9x00 series card).

do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more?

Yes, encoding home videos for DVD takes a long time even on 2.5 GHz PCs. It's even slower on my Mac (which I prefer to use, because of the software).

I wish I had a 10 GHz G4 equivalent for my Mac, simply for my home movies.

 

[vash]

Originally posted by: MCS
Think about it.

The Athlon core speed rose so quickly that it forced Intel to release their P4 early. Since then the two companies have been locked into a fierce power race, with one or the other occasionally nudging the lead. Prices have been driven down, there are chipsets/RAM coming from every direction, every month sees a new Mhz bump for each chip it seems.

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices. More power than we REALLY need. I mean, I can appreciate what it means to upgrade to the latest and greatest, but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more? Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz? Because they can!

I wonder where it will all end.

This is not supposed to be an AMD vs Intel thread.

3Ghz is not enough for everyone. Sure, 3ghz is fine for all your office apps, surfing the web, but 3Ghz is not cutting it when it comes to databases, video imaging, video rendering or even games. Heck, look at the AI involved with speaking and comprehending your language -- 3Ghz is NOT nearly enough.

The people that do not see the benefit of faster machines are not looking at everyone else around them. We have plenty of areas where there are clustered PCs, which can be replaced by a fewer, faster machines.

vash

 

[t0mmyb0y]

Originally posted by: DaMutha
I for one have a disorder that causes me to become obsessed with new technology and the need to have it. While I have occasional moments of lucidity that allow me to exit from the checkout screen before submitting it, I invariably find myself printing off the order confirmation about 3 days later.

In sum, I am a tech company's dream come true.

Ditto. We need a clinic for techies or something.

 

[Wolfsraider]

for me there is not enough computer power even with a 3+ gig computer

untill i can say" computer.....,computer..." "just use the mouse" "how quaint"

then maybe i'll be satisfied,or maybe when robots actually talk with "ai" then maybe but like all things ...
everything can be improved upon

 

[Whitedog]

So... it makes the affordable CPU's even MORE affordable.

 

[ai42]

I have a problem with both of these sentences.

First off, I think ATers (and people who post to internet hardware forums in general) actually update more often than others. I see people all the time in B&Ms that clearly don't know what they're doing buying 9000 Pro's and being promised the latest in gaming technology by the store people. The only people that would pay $300 for a piece of hardware would be people who know the benefits of it.

Secondly, please don't mention the words "nice" and "Gateway" in the same sentence again.

Yes I do think ATers do upgrade for more regularly than the general public. However I don't see ATers putting up the cash to upgrade form a 2.0A to a 3.06 P4. By early adopters I'm talking the absolute fastest and best stuff out there, and honestly I don't see hardly anyone with a 3.06 P4 in their rig specs. ATers know that the prices come down, and what is and isn't good products and bang for your buck. So it is unlikely for an ATer to get a 3.06 but rather a 2.4. And as far as OEM computers (ie Gateway Dell etc) they have their place. Most people don't build their own computers. And they certainly have repectable products.

 

[human2k]

I think GPU's are still too expensive. I dunno how to the heck I convinced myself into buying a Sapphire 9500NP for $160 when I didn't game much (that changed easily)........

 

[lssanjose]

It's true that enthusiasts more so than normal computer users upgrade every now and then. Because they push their systems to their knees at times. You can never have too much ram if you really tend to push it. Processor speeds rising have allowed those w/o the cash flow to get a faster system at good prices. I only upgrade hwen i felt i've finally pushed the system to its knees. I've done that a couple times. Enthusiats' usage changes and so through that the hardware must be faster and more robust. That's how i see it.

 

[tbates757]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
gamers won't be happy until we have "holodecks". Once we reach that you'll see Moore's law slow down quite a bit as the demand comes down.

I'm not sure that technology will ever slow down

 

[BFG10K]

The result - we are left with chips at amazing speeds for incredible prices.

And you're complaining about this? Sheeesh!

More power than we REALLY need.

Not really, if anything we need a lot more processing power than we already have. Most of today's 3D games require very fast processors to run well and Unreal II takes this to the extreme level. Even a 3.06 GHz P4 will produce slideshows at times in this game.

And that's just for gamers; spare a thought for professional graphics/CAD designers working on massive files, the multimedia guys compressing, encoding and ripping very large media files, and of course programmers working on very large projects which have long compilation times. Then there's databases, number crunching, simulations, voice recognition and everything else under the sun that requires a lot of horsepower.

but do any of us really NEED chips running at 2Ghz or more?

Try Unreal II and get back to me. Heck, try almost any game made after Quake III.

Why would somebody upgrade from 2.5Ghz to 3.0Ghz?

For an approximate 20% gain in CPU limited situations, that's why.

 

[JackBurton]

Sure, 3ghz is fine for all your office apps, surfing the web, but 3Ghz is not cutting it when it comes to databases, video imaging, video rendering or even games.

Add games to that "not enough CPU power" list. And I'm not talking about UT2 or DoomIII either (they are weak in comparison). Try running Killer Instinct on MAME with a 3GHz P4, it will take you back to the Pentium 90MHz days. I'd say a 6GHz P4 should run it nicely though, but I think I'm being conservative.

 

[lssanjose]

I want my encodes to take seconds .. tired of doing them overnight

 

[lssanjose]

I'm not sure if MAME is SSE 2 optimized.. although I could be wrong whether or not it's necessary

 

[socketman]

Yes - I need that kind of power from my PC.

Im a mapper for BF1942. I use 3dstudio Max and Photoshop for a lot of the work. In photoshop im working with textures that are 192mb in size. Then I have multiple layers, which pushes the sizes beyond 400mb. Ever try to quickly save 400mb of anything? In max, part of mapping involves raytracing...that takes some serious power to do quickly. When your constantly editing things that are 400mb and beyond you appreciate every megahertz your comp can give you. I do some modeling in max too - when you have thousands of objects on your screen and are trying to quickly zoom in/out and around - you appreciate CPU power.

But if your not using high-end software, im not sure why you'd want the latest and greatest.