[HN Gopher] PC CPU Shipments See Steepest Decline in 30 Years
___________________________________________________________________
PC CPU Shipments See Steepest Decline in 30 Years
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 99 points
Date : 2023-02-12 17:17 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| maigret wrote:
| Are Raspberry Pi available again?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Strongly recommend looking at used Dell OptiPlex Micros. I have
| 2 5060Ms, 35W Core i3 8th gen, 2 RAM slots (8GB commonly
| included), NVMe slot (256GB commonly included), SATA slot, RTC,
| for about $150. Considering Raspberry Pi prices and the
| absurdly greater performance, it was a no-brainer for me.
| superkuh wrote:
| Most people are buying rpis because they can throw some boot
| image on it made for the rpi and have things just work. A
| regular computer, no matter how much better in performance,
| doesn't _just work_.
|
| For example: you can't just throw a Birdnet-Pi
| (https://birdnetpi.com/) image on a normal PC and run it.
| There is plain Birdnet but it doesn't have any of the
| automation or the web interface for use Birdnet-Pi does.
| Instead it's pages worth of complex multi-argument commands
| you'd have to customize and you'd have to port the web
| interface yourself.
|
| Since most people want rpis for little projects like this a
| normal PC massively increases the complexity.
| dfghjjbhvg wrote:
| interesting. migth be a good IoT+HTPC+wifiRouter replacer
| combo!
| graphe wrote:
| They always are. Why do you need them? Their high prices are
| probably because of Broadcom though, which is also why they
| made their own chip. It may never be cheap again.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| Not really, no: https://www.adafruit.com/product/4295
|
| High prices are because they've been getting scalped on the
| secondary market, so I wouldn't say that means they are
| "available."
| locustous wrote:
| For a price...
| unpopularopp wrote:
| Did my part buying an i5-13600k. Going from an i7-7700 it was a
| pretty good jump
| bombcar wrote:
| I've been so far out of it for so long I have no real way to
| interpret those numbers. 13600 is almost double 7700 so that's
| obviously good but is i5 noticeably inferior to i7?
| wongarsu wrote:
| 7700 is 7th generation, 13600 is 13th generation, so they are
| about 6 years apart. The 600 and 700 tells you something
| about how they are positioned within their generation (bigger
| equals better). i5 vs i7 is a difficult topic. i7 generally
| has more hardware features enabled and has the higher end
| models. But unless you want specific features it's not so big
| of a deal.
|
| Looking up the numbers instead of reading them like tarot
| cards, I can tell you that the i7 7700 is a 8 core processor
| with a max turbo frequency of 4.20 GHz, and the i5 13600 is a
| 14 core with 6 cores that can do 5 GHz, and 8 efficiency
| cores capped at 3.7GHz. And both support VT-d, which is about
| the only feature I would care about :D
| Tsiklon wrote:
| Intel's naming convention on consumer parts is relatively
| easy to grok, as it's been much more consistent for the last
| 12 years than their server/workstation parts.
|
| Breaking both down we have 3 things to take note of:
|
| i5/i7 - indicates relative performance or feature set within
| a given generation, bigger is generally better
|
| 13/7 - the generation of processor
|
| 600/700 - where Intel rates a given processor within a
| generation, this is consistent and doesn't (to my knowledge)
| involve overlap between i3/5/7/9 - generally bigger is
| better.
|
| So i5-13600 is a thirteenth gen i5, type 600. i7-7700 is a
| seventh gen i7, type 700
|
| Then you get the legion of letter suffixes determining other
| features, mobile SKUs etc.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| i7 and i5 are just "market segment" identifiers. Even in the
| first few generations, there were "i7" cpus that were
| inferior to "i5" ones.
|
| In general, you can only infer very little from the marketing
| names. To have any actual idea, you have to look at
| benchmarks. In practice, 13600 is ~70% faster per thread, and
| has 2.5 times the threads.
| unpopularopp wrote:
| Recently, and especially with this gen, the line between i5
| and i7 is coming down to the amount of cores itself not the
| single core peformance. Basically 14 Cores, 20 Threads
| @3.5GHz vs 16 Cores, 24 Threads @3.4GHz.
|
| What used to be the i7 was (like with the i7-7700) now
| occupied by the i9 line
|
| The value price of the 12600k is just much better
| mhh__ wrote:
| Which i7?
| tinfever wrote:
| I like to use Passmark as a very rough comparison for CPUs.
| Emphasis on rough, but probably grounded in reality. Whether
| the user can utilize such performance, or if they have a
| specific workload that isn't ideally multithreaded, is
| critical.
|
| i5-13600k is around 38000 points (https://www.cpubenchmark.ne
| t/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-13600...)
|
| i7-7700k is around 9600 points (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/
| cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700K...)
|
| So the new i5 is nearly 4x faster than the old i7. New CPUs
| have come a long way over the last few years.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| A CPU a few years old is still good enough. If you have a limited
| budget and want the most bang for your buck, then stick with your
| old CPU and get a new GPU instead.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Depending on what you're doing - unless you need to game with
| slightly better FPS there's nothing a gaming PC/laptop from a
| few years ago can't completely crush still
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I was thinking more about playing with new AI toys. TBH a 10
| year old CPU and GPU are still fine for most games, latest
| AAA releases perhaps notwithstanding.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Hmm yeah I figure it's better to just rent a monster
| machine in the cloud for that. But I haven't dipped into
| that much yet
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| It's not because then you're trading graphical fidelity
| for input lag.
| btgeekboy wrote:
| Yeah, my Ryzen 3700x is a 3.5 year old CPU now. I might try to
| move to an AM5 build later this year, but it's still a very
| decent PC.
| noir_lord wrote:
| 2700X/RTX2080 - at the time I thought the 2080 was over
| priced but then things went mental and it looked like a solid
| buy.
|
| I want to upgrade (held off while buying a house and
| moving/renovating) now I finally can...I realised the only
| game I play a lot isn't even capped by my current hardware so
| there just is no incentive to upgrade.
| stateofinquiry wrote:
| I had the same CPU from 2019 until a few weeks ago. Upgraded
| to a 5700X (electricity is expensive around here, so the
| lower wattage parts are appealing); with more aggressive
| memory timing got about 20% improvement in video encoding
| (main cpu-bound task I do regularly). With selling the 3700X
| net cost for upgrade was around $100- not a bad deal, even
| though I stuck with the stock cooler! This is after I have
| also doubled the RAM from the original build to 32G for ~$60
| last October. I expect to get another 3-4 years of of this
| AM4/DDR4 rig before big overhaul.
|
| Decades ago I did similar things, but the cadence was much
| faster (annual sometimes); my conclusion, like that of many
| others, is that PCs are usable for much longer these days. A
| net positive I believe.
| bluedino wrote:
| My work PC is a i7-6700 and it's....7 years old?
| croes wrote:
| Percentage compared to the previous year is a bad measure.
|
| A positive outlier in the last year leads to a negative one in
| the current.
| V__ wrote:
| > Most of the downturn in shipments is blamed on excess inventory
| shipping in prior quarters impacting current sales.
|
| This is in line with comments from Drew Prairie (AMD's VP of
| communications): [1]
|
| > We are shipping below consumption because there is too much
| inventory in the channel and that partners want to carry lower
| levels of inventory based on the demand they are seeing
|
| [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/1499957/amd-is-
| undershipping...
| finphil wrote:
| Shipments are still high... but the "PC pandemic boom" might be
| over.
| necessary wrote:
| I don't know about anyone else but I've been patiently waiting
| for the Ryzen 9 7950X3D since the 5800X3D came out. The gaming
| performance on that chip was so good that it was competitive with
| more expensive chips at the time, despite being slower for
| productivity workloads. My 4790k is starting to show it's age
| when playing games like Rimworld and Elden Ring.
| shmerl wrote:
| I'm waiting for benchmarks. So far I'm not convinced 7950X3D
| will be better than 7950X, especially since there is no way
| scheduler will be able tell whether some thread benefits from
| more cache or from higher clocks, unless someone develops a
| very sophisticated one with AI like training capabilities? I
| haven't seen any kind of efforts of that sort (I'm gaming on
| Linux).
| chucky_z wrote:
| Look at 5800X vs 5800X3D.
| shmerl wrote:
| Not comparable, because 5800X3D provides cache for all
| cores. 7950X3D provides more cache only for half the cores.
| That creates a weird hybrid CPU. Half the cores have higher
| clocks and less cache, and half the cores have lower clocks
| and more cache.
|
| So I'm not yet convinced it's actually going to be better
| than stock 7950X with higher clocks across the board.
| schemescape wrote:
| I'm surprised to see Rimworld and Elden Ring lumped together. I
| thought Rimworld was a nicer looking Dwarf Fortress.
|
| Is the simulation just extremely CPU-intensive?
| ozarker wrote:
| Yeah it's notoriously cpu bottlenecked and doesn't do much
| multithreading
| Narishma wrote:
| It's just poorly coded and doesn't take advantage of the CPU
| power on hand. A lot of games are like that, both indie and
| AAA.
| classichasclass wrote:
| Interesting in those tables that VIA isn't even a rounding error
| anymore.
| ramshanker wrote:
| I am waiting for DDR5 prices to normalise. Simple.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Given how many times the MFGs have been caught colluding to
| keep them high, good luck!
| eertami wrote:
| With a 5800X3D, I'm waiting for DDR6 prices to normalise ;)
| jostmey wrote:
| The best chip production is going to smartphones. PC processors
| drain my battery and are slow compared to a GPU. So why would I
| spend money on a new PC or new PC processor?
| unpopularopp wrote:
| Good luck playing Hogwarts Legacy on your smartphone.
| downrightmike wrote:
| HL == ew
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I assume you picked that game just to stir shit up.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Them sweet FPS
| witheld wrote:
| I can't see myself needing a CPU upgrade for a long time. I used
| Ivy Bridge for a decade, and my Ryzen is far far more powerful.
|
| Right now the only compute upgrade I need is a GPU and I think
| that applies to a lot of people.
| zamadatix wrote:
| That era marked the lowest level of competition in CPU
| performance and it really showed in terms of how relatively
| lame an upgrade with the leader of the time (Intel) was. With
| AMD's products being competitive and ARM CPUs no longer being
| relegated to smartphone class performance there is real
| competition again. Given that and the historical tendency that
| software grows to use the available hardware I wouldn't bank on
| every CPU upgrade lasting as long as they did in that period.
|
| But damn if it hasn't been hard to get a good deal on a GPU
| these last couple of years...
| dv_dt wrote:
| post the WFH investments, plus major tech companies laying off
| pushing a glut of used hw onto the market would seem to put a
| dent it cpu shipments.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The ending of Moore's law should result in a future where compute
| devices last a century like furniture does.
| kupfer wrote:
| If it comes to that, I expect manufacturers to design
| processors in a way that electromigration limits their
| lifetime.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The new lightbulb :)
|
| I wonder if it comes to that...
| izacus wrote:
| We're in for a doomsaying "XXXX Shipments see YYY decline"
| articles after 2020 boom aren't we?
|
| Gotta have those clicks coming. This is all just reversion back
| to pre-2020 normal.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| Just built a new rig last week. This isn't at all surprising.
| Prices are so out of whack right now. $1000 used to be the
| ceiling for the highest end video cards (like a 1080 Ti), now
| $1000 is the floor. There are no good current gen (or even
| previous gen) cards available for under $1000. The 4080 is a
| horrible value and still regularly listed at $1200-$1400. The
| 4090 is overkill and sits around $1700-$2200. Even 2 year old
| tech 3080's are regularly selling for near a grand. AM5
| motherboards are insanely priced. Want a 10Gb onboard NIC? Be
| prepared to shell out $1000 just for the motherboard. Add to all
| of that, this latest batch of CPUs are just stupid power hungry -
| like 240w+ under load (except for the non-x variants of AMD 7000
| series, just released last month).
|
| It used to be you could buy a lot of computer for $2-3K, now that
| figure is closer to $5K. These prices, combined with the folks
| that just went through this pain 2 years ago during the pandemic
| and yeah you aren't going to see stuff flying off the shelves any
| time soon.
| jb1991 wrote:
| The Mac Studio is quite a powerful machine at a relatively
| reasonable price.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| How many games run on it?
| davely wrote:
| Quite a lot, at least based on my experience using Steam
| and playing various games I've bought for my actual gaming
| PC, but have builds available for multiple platforms.
|
| As long as they're 64 bit builds, MacOS's Rosetta
| translation layer does a great job of running then without
| a hitch.
|
| Apple Silicon is a beast. I wish more developers would take
| advantage of it.
| amelius wrote:
| > Apple Silicon is a beast. I wish more developers would
| take advantage of it.
|
| It's consumer electronics. Not very useful for people who
| want to build things containing a CPU/GPU.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| This is only true if your primary game preference is
| casual games. The mac studio lacks a discrete graphics
| card. Ignoring the OS, the whole ARM vs x86, and Rosetta,
| wine, whatever stumbling blocks - just lack of a discrete
| GPU is enough to make it a no-go as a serious gaming rig.
| This isn't just me talking out of my neck either. I have
| 3 rigs I keep around my desk, and one of them is a mac
| studio. Great for dev and video editing, but for gaming
| not so much.
|
| Edit: "Why do you need 3 computers?" - I regularly switch
| between Windows, Ubuntu & MacOS, and I don't like dinking
| with switching my monitor inputs, dual booting or
| remoting in. Rather just swivel my chair. Yes I fully
| realize how ridiculous this is. Some people like nice
| cars. I like wasting money on computers apparently.
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| bitL wrote:
| No worries, I have 12 computers around my desk...
| Whinner wrote:
| $1000 as the floor? Maybe if you're talking 4K gaming but
| that's the very high end.
|
| Intel arc a750 are under $300 and are decent cards for 1080 and
| do well in 1440. Dx9 support has greatly increased since
| release.
|
| Going up a little in price, amds 6650 amd 6750 are 3-400.
|
| 6800xt are under $600.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| I haven't bought a non-4K monitor in over 6 years. I honestly
| don't know anyone who is still using 1080p monitors as daily
| drivers if they are also using the machine for productivity
| or media work. But your point is not invalid.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Hi, I use a pair of 1080p monitors on my primary machine.
| Both for work, leisure and my hobby of video editing for
| youtube videos
| pprotas wrote:
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-
| Softw...
|
| > 60% of Steam users have a 1080p monitor as their primary
| display
| interstice wrote:
| How recently have they upgraded
| Nullabillity wrote:
| What motivation is there to upgrade? Even if you're
| replacing the PC itself completely there's not much of a
| reason to not just reuse the old screen.
| alyandon wrote:
| Apparently, I'm a real oddball with my dual 2408WFP
| setup: 1920 x 1200 0.70% +0.01%
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Modern games let you set separate rendering and display
| resolutions so you can get most of the benefit of a 4k
| display without requiring a video card that can render
| every pixel. The new upscaling techs address really good.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Still using my old Dell 1440p 27" monitor to edit my 4k
| youtube videos. I briefly considered buying a 4k monitor
| this year but I spent my money on a NAS instead. I use
| three monitors on my desktop, the other two being 1080p. I
| use the 27" for my main monitor and the others are for docs
| and videos. I haven't bought a monitor in like 10 years
| because these things just keep on going. I do have a 4k
| monitor and work and its nice but does not feel
| significantly different from my old 1440p monitor. If I had
| more money I probably wouldn't think much about an upgrade
| but I work for a tech non profit and live in the Bay Area
| so I am not out buying new stuff that often. The NAS was a
| long needed upgrade to serve as a backup for my important
| media!
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| 1440p gang
| anthomtb wrote:
| I am on a pair of 1080p's. I stare at text all day. What is
| the benefit of upgrading to 4K?
| acdha wrote:
| The text isn't fuzzy? I have a work-provided 1080p
| display and it's really noticeable switching between that
| and a Retina display unless I'm across the room, even
| without my glasses.
| anthomtb wrote:
| Nope, not at all.
|
| Maybe it is one of those things where, once you switch to
| 4K, you can't got back.
| E39M5S62 wrote:
| I was on ~100dpi monitors for years. I just picked up a
| 26" 4k Dell for a steal - it's noticably more crisp than
| my 1440p screens. I'm not getting rid of my 1200p and
| 1440p screens on my workstation, but ... 4k is nice.
| acdha wrote:
| Quite possibly. I do this multiple times a week and it's
| quite noticeable but that's definitely after training my
| baseline expectations.
|
| I have found it seems to be better for eye strain but
| that's a single anecdote, not science.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Your text can be _much_ sharper and easier on the eyes.
| Newer displays also can have much better dynamic range
| which also improves text readability.
| FpUser wrote:
| I run single 30" 4K monitor at 100% scaling. Main reason
| for 4K is - I usually have 2-3 editing windows arranged
| side by side when coding. It fits a lot of text
| vertically and I like that.
|
| As an extra benefit: I am a sucker for good photos and
| viewing those on large 4K is way better in my opinion. 4K
| Youtube and Netflix also looks better.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| On in-office days I'm stuck with a pair of 1080p (at home,
| yes it's a pair of 4k). It's kind of annoying.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I understand when people sont want to spend their own
| money on displays, but as a business you wre literally
| loosing money by using substandard equipment, research
| shows its around 10% of salary, much more than a monitor
| costs
| lazide wrote:
| Different budget line items. Silly huh?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| At my job we all got 1080p monitors for dev work.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| @ChuckNorris89 man... why do they hate their devs? That's
| just mean =/ Hopefully they don't have you all on a bunch
| of $400 dell optiplexes too. Pouring one out for you
| brother.
| cammikebrown wrote:
| 144Hz is way more important to me than resolution. I have a
| 4K TV I can hook my computer up to if I really want.
| scarface74 wrote:
| This is so out of touch with reality it might as well be
| "do people still watch TV? I haven't owned a TV in 10
| years"
| goosedragons wrote:
| 1440p monitors aren't that expensive either and for a lot
| of people 4K at 100% scaling is too small to be comfortable
| at a typical 27" size. For PC gaming a high refresh rate
| 1080p or 1440p display is a better buy than a 60Hz 4K one
| at roughly the same price.
| elabajaba wrote:
| The cheapest 3050 in Canada is $389. It is ~10% slower than a
| 1070ti.
|
| 4 years ago you could get a 1070ti in Canada for $400 new.
|
| The exchange rate is about the same as well.
| qball wrote:
| >The cheapest 3050 in Canada is $389. It is ~10% slower
| than a 1070ti.
|
| Fortunately, used 1070s and RX580s are 150CAD (100USD).
|
| The combination of board prices being completely out of
| whack, and the performance delta of the 3080 over the
| 3070/2080Ti (made worse by the fact that the 4090 is that
| leap _again_ over the 3080) being as large as it is, means
| the value proposition in the middle has disappeared.
|
| It's not that the 3080 isn't worth 700USD or that the
| current 4000 series cards don't have a similar
| price/performance ratio- because they very much are priced
| appropriately; it's that the cheaper new cards (especially
| the 3070) have a far worse ratio than the expensive ones
| do. This is also partially why the most popular gaming GPU
| on Steam is the GTX1650.
|
| And with current-generation console games targeting the
| equivalent of that 1070/2060, buying anything less than a
| 3080 is an objectively bad decision, unless you're someone
| who plays a lot of competitive shooters and thus can
| benefit from an intermediate for high framerate reasons.
| (The fact that most of those games aren't particularly fun
| to play also hurts the hardware industry.)
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've got a couple of machines here (mine and the kids')
| with RX480/580s in them.
|
| At this point, I think a buyer might as well get a new
| 6650XT (~US$260 plus tax) rather than trying to chase a
| 5-year old, used, half-as-powerful 580.
| vitaflo wrote:
| Let's also remember when the 1080 first launched it was a
| massive upgrade and the retail price was $600.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| And was considered really expensive, at the time
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| I bought a 1080 quite a while after they launched. I still
| have it. I have thought about building a new PC lately, and
| it seems to me that newer cards are ... not as much as an
| upgrade as I might have been led to believe? Especially given
| the cost. If I did build a new PC today, I am not entirely
| sure I would buy a new video card. The performance/value
| ratio doesn't seem as appealing as jumping to the 1080 did at
| the time back then.
| arecurrence wrote:
| Reading this really points out to me how killer of a deal that
| GeforceNow is. I truly don't understand why more publishers
| don't allow their games on the platform.
| wonnage wrote:
| Having what feels like 100ms of input delay at a minimum is
| pretty awful. Idk if there's some magic way to speculatively
| render extra frames so that input is resolved locally
| eric__cartman wrote:
| It's not a killer deal for the consumer. That's just Nvidia
| fucking you over either way and still profiting off it. The
| market is not only bad in the high end, but there aren't any
| ~$200 value oriented graphics cards that provide significant
| upgrades over past generations. Just now the GTX 1060 has
| stepped down from being the most popular card in Steam's
| hardware survey just to be replaced by the GTX 1650, a much
| newer card that costs about the same and performs about the
| same. And with less VRAM!
| dfghjjbhvg wrote:
| because they all learned from stadia and know how crappy and
| useless remote streaming of input/graphics is for most games.
|
| this tech is bad. awful. only worth for casual games which
| are already well served by comon hardware localy.
|
| its all a ruse to try to sell idle capacity for their gpu
| farms because AI model training hype never materialized
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| I tried geforce now, it's amazing, lag is almost
| imperceptible with the 8ms ping I had.
| geraldhh wrote:
| i would suspect that they either fear a loss of profit (b/c
| platform cut) or reputation (because latency/jitter from bad
| connection will be wrongly blamed on the game rather than the
| platform)
| pdntspa wrote:
| I am so glad this notion of renting your games is dying.
| People need to own their bits.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Enterprise drives shipments and the PC industry is fucked
| because: the surge of Windows 7 migration is over, they've
| become appliances, and everyone bought thousands of laptops in
| 2020/1.
|
| The only reasons to replace business desktops are swollen
| batteries and Microsoft. My teams are responsible for 250k
| devices globally. Failure rates are <3%, and 75% of failures
| are batteries and power supplies. With the transition away from
| spinning rust complete, we have more _keyboard_ failures than
| desktop PC failure. I'm taking the PC refresh savings and
| buying Macs, iPads and meeting room hardware.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Speaking from the smaller scale side of IT, in the past ~6
| months or so, I've deployed more BeeLinks (
| https://smile.amazon.com/Beelink-Graphics-Desktop-
| Computers-... ) or even smaller, Atom-powered boxes (
| https://www.amazon.com/GMKtec-Nucbox5-Desktop-Computer-
| Windo... ) than Lenovos or Dells. And my clients are really
| happy with them, too. These are, of course, still technically
| PC shipments, but the amount of money involved for the
| manufacturers is absolutely minimal. And most office workers
| don't need more.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Yep, tech work, and especially remote software work, is all
| done with laptops and docks.
|
| I'm writing this from my home gaming rig, which is an old,
| not-cool-enough-for-Win-11 (thank god), desktop. I don't know
| what I'll be replacing it with when it keels over and dies.
| Maybe a Mac tower? Maybe a Linux rig. But it'll be my PC, not
| Microsoft's if I can help it.
| layoric wrote:
| I think is largely correct, I've been working remotely for
| the better part of 10 years. I used laptops for around 6.
| The portability is great when I was split between multiple
| jobs.
|
| Changed to a desktop about 3 years ago and wouldn't go back
| unless I really needed that portability again. I had
| forgotten how much faster a well spec'd desktop machine
| actually is. And upgrading parts I find a lot better than
| replacing the whole laptop every 2-3 years.
|
| Currently on a Ryzen 5950x, 64gb ram, multiple gen 4 ssds,
| and a workstation GPU. The only laptops to beat such a
| setup in most tasks weigh a lot, cost more than double the
| desktop, and are 2 years newer.
| downrightmike wrote:
| mac mini is probably enough these days
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| There are complex reasons related to patent licensing why it
| makes no sense to put 10Gbe on a motherboard right now. If you
| want 10Gbe, don't get a $1000 motherboard for it, get a
| motherboard with a free pcie 4.0 slot and get an adapter.
| That'll cost an extra ~$100 today, and an extra ~$20 in August.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Why $20 in August?
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Patents expire.
|
| The cost of actually making a 10gbase-t network card is
| really not much anymore. All of the cost is licensing.
| Flockster wrote:
| Are there substantial patents running out in this year or why
| the huge expected priceloss?
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Yes.
| chx wrote:
| US7164692B2 and US6944163B2 at least. There might be even
| more. The former expires 2023-07-18 the latter on
| 2023-08-08.
| FpUser wrote:
| Lovely. Might actually switch to 10Gb network after
| prices fall.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| Fair enough - I'm clearly paying a premium to keep a cleaner
| interior on the build. I tend to run exactly one card - the
| video card, and aim to get everything else onboard, but as
| you pointed out that's definitely not the only way to go, and
| certainly not the most cost efficient way.
| willis936 wrote:
| Vanity can cost as much as a market is willing to pay.
|
| From a function standpoint: I'm happy that multiple PCIe
| slots is still the standard. If I didn't have functional
| wants such as "more accelerators and more I/O" then I'd go
| with a cute ITX build.
|
| I did get a compact case recently because 5.25", 3.5", and
| 2.5" bays are no longer an interesting use case for my
| daily driver, but now I find that even if I did want to
| shell out for a new high-end GPU the only model that would
| fit in my case is a perpetually sold out AIO model.
| myself248 wrote:
| Aye. I keep two desktops around for this reason.
|
| One is my new Ryzen APU in a small (sub-7-liter) case,
| which sits half empty because I haven't even dropped a
| GPU into it. All my games and CAD run just fine on the
| APU. All the included peripherals are more than I've ever
| needed.
|
| The other is my old Athlon64x2 4850e in a bigass M3N78
| Pro board, with drives and I/O out the wazoo. It's old
| enough to have floppy and PATA ports, but new enough to
| have SATA and USB too (and even a PCIe slot), so it's my
| media mule. I power it up whenever I need to do CD
| ripping, floppy archiving, that sort of stuff. I actually
| picked up the fastest chip that would fit the board (a
| Phenom II X4 945), just for giggles because they're $30
| on eBay now, but promptly swapped back to the 4850e
| because 125 watts in a CPU is unconscionable when 45 does
| the job just fine.
|
| The latter, of course, is chock-full of cables like
| they're goin' out of style. I made a few long floppy and
| PATA ribbons for working with external disks so they sit
| crammed up in the bottom when not in use, etc. And the
| non-modular PSU has like a dozen cables all splattered
| everywhere. It's the opposite of vanity, and I love it.
| 14u2c wrote:
| What's happening in August?
| bauruine wrote:
| You can get dual port 10 Gbit cards from ebay for less than
| 20$ right now.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| The only ones I see are sfp+ cards, those also require
| transceivers (at ~$50 per) to work. The cheapest 10gbase-t
| cards I can see are refurbished PCIe 16x cards with active
| cooling for ~$40, you probably don't want those either.
| Really, as a consumer you want either a PCIe x4 or ideally
| a PCIe 4.0x1 card, with a modern much more power-efficient
| chip.
| bauruine wrote:
| SFP+ uses less power, has less latency and DAC / Twinax
| cables cost less then 30$ for 6 meters. The only downside
| is that DAC is limited to 6 meters I think.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Posted the basic question in another post but I'll ask here
| too. What are you using to saturate a 10gbe nic? Inet??? I
| find a true 10gbe inet connection unusual but I've been out
| of that game for a while.
| docfort wrote:
| There's been a lot of ink spilled about the decline of Moore's
| Law and how it hasn't yet exactly fallen for all aspects of
| computer engineering. I think it's fallen for customers,
| though. The economics of exponential speed improvement in
| traditional CPU design have gone away, and the
| capability/complexity ratio of software collapsed with the fall
| of Dennard scaling. No fundamentally new applications have come
| out (save ML, which is not particularly suited to CPUs or even
| GPUs), so consumers are happy to keep chugging along with their
| current setup or move more load to their phones.
|
| Even if the increase in hardware cost stays at parity with
| inflation, it's tremendously more expensive than it used to be,
| when waiting six months could get you more machines for your
| budget.
|
| Gaming, a previous driver of high-end consumer growth, has
| split into truly mobile, consoles, and very high end PCs. But
| complex games take more capital and time to develop, so
| recouping costs is important (except if the studio is part of a
| conglomerate like Microsoft that can weather temporary market
| forces). I'd imagine that places pressure on game developers to
| aim for maximum compatibility and a scalable core. So too bad
| for the Mac, great for phones, and great for consoles
| (especially with monetizing the back catalog). And new PCs will
| have to fight against good-enough, and lower demand funding new
| hardware and software.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Agreed, I don't mind spending extra money on GPUs (I have 2
| 3090s sitting next to me) because the improvement are still
| worthwhile for my use case, but the CPU prices have been
| unjustifiable, especially on the AMD side. Increasing CPU
| price, absurd motherboard price AND needing to buy new RAM, all
| for an improvement that isn't really too meaningful unless in
| very specific tasks, is not really worth it. I instead just got
| a 5900x for my computer and moved its 3900x into a server,
| retiring its 1600x (which was also sufficient for its work,
| although at least the 1600x was noticeably slower for
| transcoding, the 3900x is proving more than sufficient).
| chx wrote:
| I am sorry but the "rule of thumb" website,
| https://www.logicalincrements.com/ disagrees with you, heavily
| so. You can still buy an awful lot of computer for $2k, it's
| right there how. The prices are real, they link -- yes, with
| affiliate links -- to real sales on Amazon/Newegg/etc. To quote
| what you can expect from their "outstanding" tier at 1628 USD:
|
| > This expensive tier has the highest possible cards that still
| maintain a reasonable performance/price. Sure it is pricey, but
| it is luxurious!
|
| > Expect high performance at 1440p, and solid performance at 4K
| even in the most demanding games.
|
| For 1865 USD:
|
| > Max most titles at 1440p@144Hz, and solid framerates in 4K,
| even with max settings.
|
| And if you want to note the 6900XT card for $720 they used here
| is out of stock then let me note a $700 6950XT:
| https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeon-rx-6950-xt-rx6950xt-ocf...
| which makes it an even better bang for your buck.
| waboremo wrote:
| This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be getting
| 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of the line
| device. 1440p/144 is midrange now.
|
| Which that $1865 one does not provide. Even before ray
| tracing, most games struggle to hit the 144 rate you're
| aiming for, so with ray tracing that drops down to like ~40
| (Cyberpunk 2077 for example in that 6900XT card). You have to
| enable workarounds like DLSS/FSR to make those games
| playable.
|
| The only way you're getting good framerate at 4k is without
| ray tracing, but you're paying $2000 to have to worry about
| still disabling settings? Ridiculous!
|
| So yes, they are overpriced. For $2000 you should not be
| worried about having to enable FSR.
|
| The usual excuse when this is brought up is "well just don't
| play those games, they seem unoptimized" to which again, the
| question is, why are you spending two thousand dollars to
| avoid playing certain games? How absurd.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| >This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be
| getting 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of
| the line device. 1440p/144 is midrange now.
|
| You're both just setting an arbitrary baseline of
| performance at $2k. Arbitrary comparisons cannot be
| misleading.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| 4k displays are like giant televisions right? do coders
| really buy 4k displays ..
| mosquitobiten wrote:
| Well the website is called logical increments, it's really
| hard to call ray tracing a logical increment. You are
| sacrificing too much to gain so little, at least for now.
| breckenedge wrote:
| This is how I see it now too. The manufacturers are
| capitalizing on people needing to have the best by making
| even more expensive top tier components. You don't need
| 4K or ray tracing to enjoy a triple-A game. Last year, I
| got a 3070-equipped system, force feedback driving wheel,
| and a 4k TV as a monitor for under $2k. The games are
| still quite gorgeous, and I have no idea what I'm missing
| by not having something more expensive.
| bialpio wrote:
| > For 1865 USD:
|
| You can also save up on the case (cheaper options should be
| available), and grab a Ryzen 7900 which should have similar
| perf & comparable price point to Intels they used, and comes
| with stock cooler, shaving off additional ~$100. I'd also
| probably skip the HDD and grab 32GB RAM.
| lastLinkedList wrote:
| That's what I'm thinking of doing when I build PCs for my
| partner and I later this year. I've been looking at
| benchmarks and I'm not as worried about the top end of
| performance as much as I am Intel being about ready to
| release a new socket design next refresh.
| bluedino wrote:
| I don't keep up with PC component prices but I thought crypto
| crashing flooded the market with cheap cards? (Then again I
| guess BTC is back into the $20k's)
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| You can only flood desert for a moment.
|
| BTC hasn't been viable on GPUs for a while, either. It's the
| Ethereum Proof-of-Stake change that was the most exciting,
| but it doesn't seem to have had a significant effect,
| especially with newer (3-4yr old) cards.
| svnt wrote:
| They are good heaters. Wait til summer.
|
| Or maybe they just sell them to generative AI farms.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's a generally global market, and it's always summer
| somewhere.
| jmyeet wrote:
| > There are no good current gen (or even previous gen) cards
| available for under $1000
|
| The 4070 Ti is <$1000.
|
| > Want a 10Gb onboard NIC? Be prepared to shell out $1000 just
| for the motherboard.
|
| Why not just a PCI-e 10GbE NIC on a regular motherboard?
|
| > now that figure is closer to $5K.
|
| I see plenty of prebuilt PCs (eg CyberpowerPC) with 3070 Tis
| for $2k. 4070 Tis for $2.5k.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The current prices are indeed high, but if I would upgrade
| right now my desktop with the best components that I can find,
| that would cost only $1500.
|
| The $1500 would pay for an AMD 7950X, an ASUS MB with ECC
| support and a decent configuration of the expansion slots
| (Prime X670E-Pro), a Noctua cooler suitable for 7950X (e.g.
| NH-U12A) and 64 GB of ECC DDR5-4800 memory (which for 64 GB
| costs $100 more than the non-ECC variant).
|
| For the rest, I would continue to use the case, the SSDs, the
| 10 Gb/s NIC and the GPU that I am currently using.
|
| If I would want to also upgrade the GPU, I would buy a RTX 4070
| Ti, for 3 reasons. It provides enough extra performance to make
| an upgrade worthwhile, it has the best performance per $ among
| all recent GPUs (at MSRP, a 7900 XTX would have better
| performance per $, but it can be found only at much higher
| prices), and lastly, 4070 Ti is the only recent GPU for which
| the vendor specifies the idle power consumption and the power
| consumption during light use (e.g. video decoding) and the
| specified values are small enough to be acceptable in a desktop
| that is not intended for gaming.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| > Want a 10Gb onboard NIC?
|
| Just buy an Intel PCI-E 10g card. They're like $100. Slots on
| motherboards are meant to be used.
| teeray wrote:
| I would have expected the crypto implosion to have a depressing
| effect on graphics card prices (certainly in the secondary
| market). Any theories why they remain elevated? Is it just
| supply chain stuff that everything is experiencing?
| neogodless wrote:
| In comparison, they are much less expensive. (Though people
| who refuse to switch brands might have a harder time.)
|
| For example, The Radeon 6700 XT 12GB was commonly $900+
| during the crypto boom, but is regularly around $350 now.
| That's a pretty big drop.
|
| "Current generation" - only very expensive high end models
| have been announced (and some aren't selling as low as MSRP
| yet.)
|
| RTX 4070 Ti $800 | RX 7900 XT $900 | RX 7900 XTX $1000 | RTX
| 4080 $1200 | RTX 4090 $1600
|
| You have to stick to last generation for excellent
| performance with less insane pricing.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| sylens wrote:
| Not only are the prices out of whack, but the newest games
| coming out all seem to have some sort of technical issue on the
| PC. Shader stutter is nearly a universal thing in most new
| releases, or the developer doesn't optimize for the platform at
| all (Callisto Protocol and to a lesser extent, Hogwarts
| Legacy). So not only are you paying more money than ever,
| you're experiencing certain issues that just aren't there on
| consoles.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| I recall Jonathan Blow talking about how it's basically
| impossible to eliminate stutter on Windows now due to a
| number of design decisions in the OS driver system itself.
|
| I'm wondering if this is the moment for Linux gaming. Valve
| has certainly taken it a long ways from where it was.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Unless you your inet connection can sustain 10gb then what's
| the point of a 10gb nic? I have gbit fiber that rarely gets
| above 6-700mbit. Is a full 10gb inet connection that common?
|
| Even on LAN do you have I/O that can deliver 10gb/sec to the
| wire?
| gruez wrote:
| >Add to all of that, this latest batch of CPUs are just stupid
| power hungry - like 240w+ under load (except for the non-x
| variants of AMD 7000 series, just released last month).
|
| That's because in the race to get the highest benchmark scores,
| both companies have set the stock clocks to a level that's way
| beyond what's optimal (eg. adding 100W of power consumption to
| get 5% higher benchmark scores). The CPUs themselves are fine,
| you just have to adjust the power/clock limit lower.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Honestly you don't have to adjust the limit: the "power under
| load" angle just gets completely overblown because people go
| based on a reviewer's definition of load
|
| They might be 240W under _extreme_ load, but I can play AAA
| titles on my i9 at 240hz barely cracking 50% CPU load. And
| that 's with a 3090, so not exactly a mismatched CPU/GPU
| situation.
|
| At those types of loads the CPU doesn't even try to hit boost
| clocks most of the time, so you're nowhere near the figures
| you often see touted based on benchmarks.
| karamanolev wrote:
| By "CPU load", loading the CPU is implied. The fact that
| your AAA titles don't load the CPU, because they're GPU-
| bottlenecked is irrelevant. Load the CPU properly, e.g.
| compiling, and you'll see large power consumptions.
| 015a wrote:
| Yeah; games to this day are still pretty bad at utilizing
| multiple cores. Any idiot can do the math; the i7 13700k
| has 16 cores, and an advertised max TDP of 250W. That's a
| ton of power; but if you're only really stressing 2 or 3
| cores the real power draw isn't that high. These chips are
| so powerful that your bottleneck is almost always GPU,
| unless you're playing CS:GO at 1080p and aiming for 800fps,
| so realistically its common to see 25-60% utilization on 1
| or 2 P-cores, and the rest just running Windows background
| shit.
|
| This is proven by any outlet which takes the time to
| measure Performance Per Watt (e.g.
| https://www.hwcooling.net/en/intel-
| core-i7-13700k-efficient-...). Intel has consistently
| driven higher PPW with every generation, when you're
| comparing like-for-like binned chips. AMD, on the other
| hand, has been a bigger victim of what the OP is
| describing; while their raw PPW is generally higher than
| Intel, so they have room to fall, their Ryzen 7x chips
| aren't consistently posting higher PPW numbers over Ryzen
| 5x.
|
| In other words; both Intel and AMD are doing well here. If
| you're stressing every core on the CPU at 100%, you're
| going to draw a lot of power, but you're also going to be
| completing workloads much faster than on 12th or 11th gen,
| so your aggregate power draw will be lower. The low-tier
| media outlets that post "OMG 250W" aren't doing research,
| and also don't care to, because they get clicks from tons
| of people like the OP who eat outrage at face value.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It's not just low-tier media outlets (at least in terms
| of reach), this is largely driven by large names like LTT
| and Gamer's Nexus
|
| People don't realize that mid range mobile chips from
| both Intel and AMD out perform top of the range desktop
| SKUs from a few years ago because they're constantly
| bombarded by hot takes based on things like _CPU_
| rendering and unzipping files...
|
| At this point I'm convinced it's just an informal cycle,
| where if they actually reported in a realistic manner, no
| release would be exciting. If they didn't pair bottom of
| the line CPUs with top end GPUs and odd settings
| configurations under the guise of "not wanting to reflect
| a GPU bottleneck", it'd be a lot clearer how badly needs
| have stagnated vs the speed of these new SKUs
| gruez wrote:
| >At this point I'm convinced it's just an informal cycle,
| where if they actually reported in a realistic manner, no
| release would be exciting. If they didn't pair bottom of
| the line CPUs with top end GPUs and odd settings
| configurations under the guise of "not wanting to reflect
| a GPU bottleneck", it'd be a lot clearer how badly needs
| have stagnated vs the speed of these new SKUs
|
| Hardware unboxed did a video explaining why reviews do
| that: https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM
|
| tl;dw: you're not caring about the performance today,
| you're caring about the performance a few years from now
| when you bought a faster GPU.
| chx wrote:
| ^^^^ this
|
| Someone on reddit did a power analysis of the 13900K and I
| reposted it here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34404683 https://www.red
| dit.com/r/hardware/comments/10bna5r/13900k_po... and it shows
| the CPU at 100W has 75% of the performance at 40% of the
| power consumption...
| oblak wrote:
| It's still pretty bad compared to Ryzen 7000. The non-x
| models are just the regular guys at 65W, like my good ol
| 3700x.
|
| That said, Intel sure has magic dust given how far behind
| their node disadvantage. Serves them right, though. What a
| horrible company.
| reisse wrote:
| Their node disadvantage is mostly good marketing from
| TSMC though. Intel 10 (10nm, but that's not the real
| nanometers) is ~100M transistors per mm2, while TSMC 5
| (5nm, but again, that's not the real nanometers) is ~130M
| transistors per mm2.
|
| Sure, 30% better, but not a 2x improvement as marketing
| suggests.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I doubt the decline of PC shipments is because of a
| statistically few people building gaming PCs
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| If you care about price, the 3060, RX 6700 XT, or Intel Arc
| A770 16GB are your best bets.
|
| xx80 and xx90s are in the class "If you need to ask the price
| you cant afford it."
| neogodless wrote:
| > There are no good current gen (or even previous gen) cards
| available for under $1000
|
| Wait, what? Yes there are! An AMD Radeon RX 6800 will set you
| back $480.
|
| What is your criteria for "good" here?
|
| My computer would be, at today's prices, about $1400.
|
| AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12 core | 32GB DDR4-3600 | 2 x 1TB PCIe gen 4
| | Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB | (Corsair case, PSU and AIO, MSI
| X570)
| shmerl wrote:
| _> Add to all of that, this latest batch of CPUs are just
| stupid power hungry - like 240w+ under load_
|
| Eco mode is a thing for AMD CPUs. There is no point really in
| not using it by default - benefits are very marginal with power
| cost being disproportionally huge. And AMD are doing it more
| for marketing reasons to gain some single digit percentages in
| benchmarks.
|
| So just enable it (105 W one) and enjoy way more reasonable and
| efficient power usage with basically almost the same
| performance.
|
| See some details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6aKQ-
| eBFk0
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| I wonder how much of this increase is due to social media.
|
| 10-15 years ago, people would buy graphics cards to play the
| latest games on. Epeen was a thing, but limited to just some
| text in your forum signature.
|
| Now, it seems like half the reason people buy any sort of
| "status" item is for the clout on Insta. It was eactly the same
| thing with the PS5 2 years ago - people clamouring for a
| useless object just to show other people they have it.
| Clubber wrote:
| I believe bitcoin mining contributed a lot to the demand side
| as well.
| tedivm wrote:
| 10-15 years ago people were posting their rigs, adding liquid
| cooling, ridiculous lighting, massive overclocking. It was
| definitely more than a forum signature.
| geraldhh wrote:
| > Want a 10Gb onboard NIC? Be prepared to shell out $1000 just
| for the motherboard.
|
| quick search turns up options for around 500euros
|
| but don't be fooled, 10GbE copper is a power hungry mess. go
| with lower n-baseT speeds if just want some progression for the
| last twenty years of networking innovation or invest in optical
| and get a real upgrade (20/40/100 Gbps)
| flangola7 wrote:
| What is the use case of 10Gb Ethernet for the regular PC
| user? Or even the enthusiast?
|
| I have a sprawling homelab and home theater and scarcely need
| regular 1G. Last summer I transferred a media archive of
| ~10TB to new hardware, which completed overnight across Cat5.
| Is there some hot new hobby that generates multi gigabit
| bursts that I don't know about?
| [deleted]
| lazide wrote:
| Uh, at maximum speed on a gigabit network, it takes 22
| hours, 13 minutes to transfer 10 TB.
|
| That's not overnight unless you're a hell of a sleeper.
|
| On a 10Gig network, assuming no other bottlenecks (harder
| to do), it's 2 and a quarter hours.
|
| Personally, I use 10 gig because 100MB/s is really slow.
| Even 2.5Gb is much, much better and makes it a lot more
| likely something besides the network is the bottleneck.
|
| I personally move around enough data, it bothers me enough
| to be worth it.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Editing video files. My kids are both into making videos
| and even though most of them are crap, I still want to get
| them into good habits of "store important files on the
| storage server" and we don't have any redundancy on local
| file storage. The difference between 1 and 10Gbps ethernet
| is noticeable there. (They only have 2.5Gbps to the desktop
| switch which has 10Gbps link to downstairs, so they only
| get ~250MB/s transfer, but they each have it simultaneously
| if they want.)
| progman32 wrote:
| My only 10g link is between my main workstation and my nas.
| Between the SSD on my workstation and the 2 ssd array in
| the nas, I easily saturate 1g. Makes a big difference for
| video work and certain dev tasks (i.e. generating disk
| images). Granted I spent less than $100 for this capability
| using older solarflare cards and optics.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| AM5 w/ PCIE 5, DDR5 support and 10GBe? I've already eaten the
| cost, but I would love a link to the board you found. I saw a
| lot in that price range with 2.5 or 5GB but didn't run into
| any with 10GBe. That said I may have missed one. If nothing
| else it may be useful for when the wifes gaming rig gets an
| upgrade in a few months.
|
| As to why I'm sticking with 10Gbe - I have a 24 port 10GBe
| switch for the house so going with the kit that matches the
| network I already have.
| cptnapalm wrote:
| I got an older Supermicro off eBay with 6 10Gb ports for $89.
| nickpeterson wrote:
| Is AMD completely out of the arm chip game? I know they had
| interest a few years back but seemed to abandon it. I'd really
| like an option to buy an arm cpu and motherboard from someone who
| will support it. Basically something in between a rpi and a
| MacBook. 400-500 with upgradable ram, storage, and gpu.
| opencl wrote:
| At least for now AMD doesn't have anything ARM. There are ARM
| systems available but nothing anywhere close to that price
| range.
|
| The Honeycomb LX2 is probably the closest thing to that
| currently, but it launched for $750 and has since gone up to
| around $920. Performance is not remotely competitive with x86
| systems at that price point.
|
| There are some systems based on the Ampere Altra chips, but
| nobody sells the motherboards/CPUs on their own and a full
| system will run you at least ~$6000.
| tambre wrote:
| Adlink sells an COM-HPC motherboard [0] and a corresponding
| Ampere Altra module [1].
|
| [0] https://www.adlinktech.com/products/Computer_on_Modules/C
| OM-... [1] https://www.adlinktech.com/Products/Computer_on_Mo
| dules/COM-...
| dehrmann wrote:
| Googling "ARM ATX motherboard" has some results, but these are
| so uncommon, everything's going to be an uphill battle.
| varelse wrote:
| [dead]
| andrewstuart wrote:
| I wonder if Nvidia and AMD are partly to blame.
|
| They are artificially keeping GPU prices high, so people don't
| want to buy GPUs.
|
| And if they don't want to buy a GPU then they don't want the
| thing that the GPU goes in.
| than3 wrote:
| The prices are simply too high for the marginal benefit they
| offer.
|
| Marginal costs outweigh the benefits so why would people buy?
| This is simple economics and they know this, but they still price
| fix because they must meet their minimum profits whatever that
| may be.
|
| Its a common problem with monopolies, as soon as the market place
| shrinks to only a few players, where the means of production has
| been concentrated, those people then start dictating prices and
| may collude without even needing some conspiratorial agreement.
|
| Many people also ignore the fact that Intel ME/AMT and the AMD
| equivalent features that cannot be disabled, are not documented,
| and are primary targets; are becoming more well known, and in
| general people don't want it.
|
| Businesses may find value in those features, but individuals find
| cost (i.e. their privacy, and greater future risks that are
| unquantifiable).
|
| They've broken their own market, and the rot will only get worse
| for them since its unlikely they will right the course. Many IT
| people wonder if there isn't some secret government mandate
| requiring these companies to embed management co-processors. It
| is clearly offering only minimal value to IT, and its seen as a
| cost for individuals that know about it.
|
| They really need to reconsider their actual market instead of the
| fairy magic kingdom type thinking they have been following.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| You're putting the fact that modern computers have AMT up with
| Covid, supply shortages, and Crypto crashes in terms of sales
| loss???...????? You really, really need to get out of whatever
| bubble you're in.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> McCarron shines a glimmer of light in the wake of this gloom,
| reminding us that overall processor revenue was still higher in
| 2022 than any year before the 2020s began._
|
| Suggests a correction precipitated by panic-buying during the
| supply chain chaos of the pandemic era. Too soon for doom and
| gloom for the PC market just yet. Mobile devices have been
| dominating PCs since long before 2020, and if revenues were still
| growing in the past decade then there's nothing to suggest that
| this moment is suddenly the inflection point where the whole
| thing will come tumbling down, even if you do believe that
| something like that is inevitable.
| Finnucane wrote:
| Yeah, everybody upgraded their WFH office setups in the prior
| two years, now no one needs a new pc. We're going to be good
| for a while.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Games also don't really require that good PC's these days,
| you can pretty much still play everything on a decent 3-4
| year machine
| D13Fd wrote:
| Everybody targets console specs (and sometimes last gen
| console specs...), so if your PC exceeds that bar, it's
| often wasted.
| lostmsu wrote:
| I am hoping that more deep learning based stuff gets
| integrated, and they pushes hardware further.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| > excluding ARM
|
| These figures exclude ARM CPUs, another possibility is that
| lots of people are switching/buying ARM devices.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Isn't Apple high end computers the only ones? Maybe some
| Chromebooks
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Yes there aren't many but they're growing very fast:
| https://www.techspot.com/news/97571-arm-cpus-forecast-
| captur...
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Yeah, everybody upgraded their WFH office setups in the
| prior two years, now no one needs a new pc. We're going to be
| good for a while.
|
| Also, it feels like phones have entered that "Core 2 Duo" PC
| stage where upgrades don't really matter as much any more. I
| know software support can still be an issue, but at least on
| the iPhone side, I don't feel like I need to upgrade before
| my phone loses OS support.
| downrightmike wrote:
| I'm waiting on USB-C
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| I upgraded from an S10 to an S22 and I can barely tell the
| difference.
| elcapitan wrote:
| Makes it even more painful that you HAVE to upgrade
| nowadays because you just won't get any updates anymore.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| I had to upgrade because the battery couldn't hold a
| charge and the two replacements I bought were worse than
| the original.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Exactly it's the same with laptops. If you know anything
| about decent specs and don't buy something with a
| ridiculous bottleneck and do a fresh install you can find
| a 5+ year old laptop that is amazing for anything other
| than extreme workloads. I mean like rendering scenes -
| not VSCode and Slack or something
| ghaff wrote:
| I use an Apple Silicon MacBook Pro for multimedia and
| some other things. But most of what I do on a 7+ year old
| MacBook and iMac does just fine.
|
| I suspect you also have something of a generational thing
| with many younger students not even using PCs.
| robryan wrote:
| Apple going to have a hard time getting people with M1
| macs to upgrade any time soon.
| tyre wrote:
| I had a 2015 MBP that was falling apart and waited for
| the M2 refresh. I expect that I won't get another laptop
| until 2030.
|
| I have an iPhone 11 (fall 2019) and I see no reason to
| upgrade.
|
| It does feel like we've hit a plateau. The only step up I
| can see would be on-device ML/"AI" models. Removing the
| latency and improving offline capabilities of something
| like Siri would open some doors.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah. On-device ML. Cameras are also still improving YoY
| as more people abandon standalones. But while I'm usually
| on a 3 year cycle, I'd have to be convinced with this
| year's model.
|
| And I may slide in a Mac Mini/Studio in place of my iMac
| at some point, I'm not really in a hurry in spite of
| being out of OS update support. It's basically a browser
| machine given I have a newish laptop.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Hence apples shift into the services segment. Pushing Apple
| Music, Apple TV, iCloud, etc.
| dfghjjbhvg wrote:
| and payments.
|
| visa and mastercards will not last another decade if
| hardware sales don't pick up soon.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| Great way to put it. My current phone feels as useful now
| as the day I got it, whereas previous smartphones started
| to feel sluggish as apps and sites got slower and it felt
| outclassed by newer cameras.
| mosquitobiten wrote:
| They also entered the extreme bloatware phase, see new
| Samsung phone with 60GB occupied out of the gate.
| newsclues wrote:
| So you had a few factors.
|
| COVID/WFH Panic Purchasing for work and school at home. COVID
| Cash also put money into peoples hands to buy stuff, like
| computers. Crypto mining and GPU shortage was also a factor. As
| people were buying systems and parts for speculation. People
| were buying prebuilt computers to mine or simply get the GPU.
| Scalpers made everything worse, messing with parts in the
| supply chain.
|
| So there is the supply and demand factors, and the extra money
| for consumers and the speculation for crypto, and it was a
| perfect storm.
| q1w2 wrote:
| This is why year-over-year numbers are not good to look at.
| kurthr wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment, but mobile devices have also seen a
| plunge in sales. Many in the industry expected 2B units/year,
| but it maxed out around 1.6B. The last few years have seen
| volatility, between 1.2-1.4B. Last year was the worst since
| 2016, and the next worst was 2020.
|
| Only Apple has been relatively flat, and probably only they and
| Samsung are very profitable.
|
| Most of the profitability in "PC" (GPU/CPU) has really been
| datacenter for 5 years. Again, Intel executed badly, but the
| decision to focus on datacenter was right.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Now all the cloud vendors are making their own chips. This
| had to have been obvious given how a small company in the UK
| could build the Raspberry Pi.
| gruez wrote:
| >This had to have been obvious given how a small company in
| the UK could build the Raspberry Pi.
|
| According to wikipedia they use chips from Broadcom. I'm
| not sure how a small company being able to make SBCs using
| chips from a massive multinational is indicative of how
| easy it is for cloud vendors to "make their own chips".
| nathants wrote:
| i recently built my first pc and moved my daily driver from being
| a thinkpad to a custom desktop.
|
| i was already sitting at a desk, so ergonomically it's identical.
|
| now i can compile blender in 20 seconds and fly around with
| eevee. i can compile linux with custom lsm modules.
|
| dual ssd makes it easy to dual boot. reboot into windows and i
| can have a magical evening.
|
| 7950x, 4090, 990 pro. it would be great if these were cheaper,
| then more people could afford to use them. it's also ok that they
| are overpriced. cest la vie.
|
| to anyone spending a majority of their life on a computer and
| making money, the cost of your primary computer doesn't matter
| unless it's ludicrous.
|
| the opportunity cost is far higher. what might you have learned
| had you tinkered with blender or a kernel when you were bored?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-12 23:01 UTC)