[HN Gopher] The average CPU performance of PCs and notebooks fel...
___________________________________________________________________
The average CPU performance of PCs and notebooks fell for the first
time
Author : doener
Score : 33 points
Date : 2025-02-12 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cpubenchmark.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cpubenchmark.net)
| cluckindan wrote:
| Hyperthreading and speculative execution are going out of
| fashion?
|
| Now if we could just get rid of fake frames on the GPU side.
| noizejoy wrote:
| Price increases due to multiple factors from higher interest
| rates to trade wars, etc. are tempering the financial enthusiasm
| of customers to buy at the higher end, maybe?
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Moore's law crushed by capitalism? Does anyone else have a better
| explanation?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Most likely explanation is that we are comparing 1 months worth
| of data for 2025 to the full years worth on previous years. The
| laptops people will have over 2025 haven't been purchased yet.
| dgfitz wrote:
| I am super curious, if you'll indulge me. What kind of economic
| policy would have let Moores law continue as it had been?
| Conversely, do you think Moores law would have been faster than
| 18? months if... someone else identified Moores law? Slower?
| Exist at all?
| slyall wrote:
| Discussion from a day or so ago. 59 comments:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43017612
| RachelF wrote:
| I wonder why? Some possibilities:
|
| 1. Extra silicon area being used by NPUs and TPUs instead of
| extra performance?
|
| 2. Passmark runs under Windows, which is probably using
| increasing overhead with newer versions?
|
| 3. Fixes for speculative execution vulnerabilities?
|
| 4. Most computers are now "fast enough" for the average user, no
| need to buy top end.
|
| 5. Intel's new CPUs are slower than the old ones
| dehrmann wrote:
| 4 has been true for over a decade.
| kome wrote:
| i use a 10 years old macbook air and honestly i can do
| everything i need, statistics, light programming, browsing
| and photo editing. perfect.
|
| i wait it to break before moving on, changing for the sake to
| changing feels like waste.
| skyyler wrote:
| I use a 10 years old macbook pro and the only thing I
| dislike is the battery life and the heat generated.
|
| I simply can't afford the replacement 16" MBP right now.
| Hopefully it lasts another couple of years.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Literally the only reason you need a computer less than 10
| years old for day to day tasks is to keep up with the layers
| of javascript that are larded onto lots of websites. It's
| sad.
|
| Edit: oh and electron apps. Sweet lord, shouldnt we have
| learned in the 90s with java applets that you shouldnt use a
| garbage collected language for user interfaces?
| dbtc wrote:
| Programmers failing to manufacture sufficient inefficiency to
| force upgrade.
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| > 1. Extra silicon area being used by NPUs and TPUs instead of
| extra performance?
|
| I'm not an expert in silicon design, but I recall reading that
| there's a limit to how much power can be concentrated in a
| single package due to power density constraints, and that's why
| they are adding fluff instead of more cores.
|
| >2. Passmark runs under Windows, which is probably using
| increasing overhead with newer versions?
|
| This is a huge problem as well. I have a 2017 15" MacBook Pro
| and it's a decent computer, except it is horribly sluggish
| doing anything on it, even opening Finder. That is with a fresh
| install of macOS 13.7.1. If I install 10.13, it is snappy. If I
| bootcamp with Windows 11, it's actually quite snappy as well
| and I get 2 more hours of battery life somehow despite Windows
| in bootcamp not being able to control (power down) the dGPU
| like macOS can. Unfortunately I hate Windows, and Linux is very
| dodgy on this Mac.
| wiredfool wrote:
| As the chart is updated bi-weekly, but the data point that may
| change is for the current year. The first few days or weeks of a
| new year are less accurate compared to the end of a year.
| moffkalast wrote:
| January 2024:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240123174954/https://www.cpube...
|
| January 2023:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230130185431/https://www.cpube...
|
| Still, both previous years were notably up after the first
| month already. This _is_ different and perhaps notable
| regardless. Either the release schedule is skewed forward or
| the hardware is genuinely stagnating. Or perhaps the benchmark
| is hitting some other CPU unrelated bottleneck.
| ellisv wrote:
| Really makes you wish the chart showed some measure of variance
| vladms wrote:
| People got smarter and buy only what they need?
| ZiiS wrote:
| :shrug: CPU performance is a rounding error on your GPU and RAM
| bottlenecks.
| Osiris wrote:
| The GPU being a bottleneck over the CPU is only in very
| specific scenarios.
|
| Can you be more specific about what message you're trying to
| convey?
| Osiris wrote:
| Looking at the top end chart, which flat lined, it seems that the
| biggest contributor would be a slower release cycle of the most
| performant chips. It looks like the score of the top end chips
| were dragging up the average. With the top spot not changing, the
| average is falling.
|
| I'm curious what median and std dev look like.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-12 23:00 UTC)