Moore's Law provided Planned Obsolescence

By: hobold (hobold.delete@this.vectorizer.org), January 23, 2014 1:31 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on January 22, 2014 11:31 pm wrote:

[...]
> But since AMD is not only not on
> Intel's throat, but are tripping over their own feet, maybe Intel leaves that idea on
> the shelf, because they don't really benefit from an extra 4% gain today.
>
Back when performance increased exponentially, newer faster CPUs made existing older machines appear obsoleted. This felt roughly proportional to speedup, i.e. 1% faster made old machines appear 1% obsolete, but 100% faster made them seem 100% obsolete. (This is not meant to be a real formula, just an illustration of a trend.)

Moore's Law provided the PC industry with a natural "planned obsolescence". Perhaps Intel themselves think that competition from AMD is the main reason to keep pushing single thread performance. But if Intel does not make their new processors notably faster than existing ones, then customers don't have much of a reason to replace their computers.

Integrating more stuff on the processor die makes some sense for new machines, due to cost reduction. But an existing machine with discrete components has already been paid for; if it isn't outperformed, then progress in terms of higher integration does not obsolete the old box.

It seems to me that nowadays, only advances in performance/Watt are still big enough to obsolete existing machines. But that reason is compelling only for supercomputers, not for mass market consumers who have electricity bills that are orders of magnitude lower.


Long talk, little sense: I think Intel does have an incentive to keep pushing single thread performance, even without AMD chasing. Higher performance used to be a major incentive for customers to replace their old computers.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Some cinebench scores and IPCTimothy McCaffrey2014/01/17 09:27 PM
  Many Thanks :) (NT)Alberto2014/01/18 02:12 AM
  Thanks! :-) (NT)Poindexter2014/01/19 04:46 AM
  Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?slacker2014/01/19 11:47 AM
    Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Brett2014/01/19 12:48 PM
      Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Alberto2014/01/19 02:08 PM
        Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Exophase2014/01/19 07:48 PM
          Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Alberto2014/01/20 02:15 AM
            Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Exophase2014/01/20 02:45 AM
              Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Alberto2014/01/21 04:42 AM
                Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Exophase2014/01/21 08:10 AM
                  Monopolies holding back advancementsDoug S2014/01/21 06:04 PM
                    Monopolies holding back advancementsMaxwell2014/01/22 08:00 AM
                      Monopolies holding back advancementsDoug S2014/01/22 11:31 PM
                        Moore's Law provided Planned Obsolescencehobold2014/01/23 01:31 AM
                          Moore's Law provided Planned ObsolescenceDoug S2014/01/23 08:54 PM
                            Moore's Law provided Planned Obsolescencehobold2014/01/24 03:02 AM
                              Moore's Law provided Planned ObsolescenceDoug S2014/01/24 01:18 PM
        Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Maynard Handley2014/01/19 10:26 PM
          Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Exophase2014/01/19 11:01 PM
            Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Maynard Handley2014/01/20 03:25 AM
              Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Patrick Chase2014/01/21 10:13 AM
                Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Patrick Chase2014/01/21 12:31 PM
          Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Patrick Chase2014/01/21 09:19 AM
            Intel and branch predictionDavid Kanter2014/01/21 10:26 AM
              Intel and branch predictionMaynard Handley2014/01/21 08:52 PM
                Intel and branch predictionMaynard Handley2014/01/21 09:14 PM
                No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPaul A. Clayton2014/01/21 10:04 PM
                  No dynamic predication yet, I suspectExophase2014/01/22 12:29 AM
                    No dynamic predication yet, I suspectdmcq2014/01/22 05:24 AM
                    No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPatrick Chase2014/01/22 11:36 PM
                      No dynamic predication yet, I suspectMaynard Handley2014/01/23 08:51 AM
                        No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPatrick Chase2014/01/23 11:59 AM
                          No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPatrick Chase2014/01/23 12:01 PM
                          16 misses per core on Haswell?David Kanter2014/01/23 06:10 PM
                            16 misses per core on Haswell?Patrick Chase2014/01/23 08:12 PM
                          No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPatrick Chase2014/01/27 06:34 PM
                            Fixed link to paperPaul A. Clayton2014/01/28 08:51 AM
                        No dynamic predication yet, I suspectPatrick Chase2014/01/23 12:29 PM
                      SMT influence on ROB size?Paul A. Clayton2014/01/23 11:26 AM
                        SMT influence on ROB size?Patrick Chase2014/01/23 08:40 PM
    Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Exophase2014/01/19 07:44 PM
    Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?anon2014/01/19 08:43 PM
      Is Cinebench a totally useless benchmark?Timothy McCaffrey2014/01/20 04:24 PM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell purple?