I'm the reason vendors sell gimped PC hardware.

[mv2devnull]

let's take something easy, like cars. "I cant belive there is more fords being sold then ferrari"

Are Fords "lower and cheaper than low end"?

An equivalent to Larry's point would be majority buying quadricycles[*] instead of Fords and the industry shifting to produce mainly such deathtraps.


[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorised_quadricycle

 

[IntelUser2000]

So in your eyes datacenter growth is based on price increases? Good luck with that "theory".

Not completely. But some of the gains in revenue are definitely contributed by that.

Just like the PC market - ever decreasing volume of PCs, but near record revenue for Intel, or a substantially less decline. Something is amiss, or they are just moving it to higher ASP chips.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not completely. But some of the gains in revenue are definitely contributed by that.

Just like the PC market - ever decreasing volume of PCs, but near record revenue for Intel, or a substantially less decline. Something is amiss, or they are just moving it to higher ASP chips.

dGPUs moved to higher margin products, record GTX sales (GTX970 in king of the hill at steam). "Enthusiast" CPUs did the same, record high K units sold.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Could any of this have to do with the economy going to Hell in a handbasket in 2008 and the ensuing jobless "recovery?"

I think the "longer lifecycle" thing is only partly caused by Intel not having had a huge jump the likes of Nehalem-->Sandybridge; the other part of the story would be that the long lifecycles are caused by people who can't bloody afford a new machine and so make do.

Typed from my 8 year old Thinkpad, who moves me to tears with how tough she is and how much abuse she withstands.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Could any of this have to do with the economy going to Hell in a handbasket in 2008 and the ensuing jobless "recovery?"

I think the "longer lifecycle" thing is only partly caused by Intel not having had a huge jump the likes of Nehalem-->Sandybridge; the other part of the story would be that the long lifecycles are caused by people who can't bloody afford a new machine and so make do.

Typed from my 8 year old Thinkpad, who moves me to tears with how tough she is and how much abuse she withstands.

Longer life cycle has nothing to do with Intel products, IMO. The average Jane/Joe doesn't sit there looking at benchmarks to decide when to upgrade her/his current PC.

The average Joe/Jane tends to buy a new PC when his/her old system no longer does the job required. This could be due to a number of factors including:

1. System/major component is broken
2. System is just too slow, even for basic tasks
3. Battery won't hold enough of a charge for the user's daily use

Outside of enthusiasts (who upgrade at quite a rapid clip), most people don't actually get a "warm fuzzy" from buying a new PC. It is a "need" not a "want" for most people, so if they can get more life out of their pre-existing systems, then they will.

 

[Concillian]

Edit: And again, I DO blame the OEMs for some of their higher-end (CPU-wise) rigs, that are otherwise totally UNBALANCED. So called "gaming rigs" at BestBuy, with a 4790, 12GB of RAM (why not 8 or 16? What about dual-channel), and like a 4GB GT730 DDR3 video card. And of course, no SSD.

The OEMs are either ruthlessly ignoring the needs of most people, in terms of selling them a reasonably-configured PC, or they're just clueless about configurations, and instead prefer to sell "checkbox systems", with higher numbers, but without the balanced performance that most people would prefer.

And the above system with a 300W PSU, with only enough power connectors for the SATA DVD-RW and HDD, and nothing else, no video card connectors, etc.

Edit: This bothers me personally, because I build custom rigs, and I've seen friends / acquaintances get more-or-less "burned" by buying a PC at BestBuy, and instead of getting an OEM rig for basic desktop computing dirt-cheap using a coupon or buying clearance or both at Staples, they bought an overpriced i5 rig for "gaming", and it didn't even come with a GPU! For the same money, I could have built them something a lot more balanced.

This has been an issue forever. Even at HP and such, where you can custom configure a system, you often have to get to pretty serious CPUs before they even let you add in a midrange GPU. Like an i3 with a 960? no way. You NEED an i5 for that video card.

I just checked HP's website, and yeah, you can't configure an i3 with an R9 370 or GTX960, you can with an i5, but get this... the i5 is 12GB minimum and the same price as an i7 with 8GB... Yeah... the i5 can't be configured with 8GB but the i7 can. You heard it here first people. i5s need at least 12 GB RAM.

By the way, you can upgrade the 8GB i7 to 16 GB RAM for ONLY an additional $120. Yep, 8 additional GB for the low low price of almost twice what 16GB will cost you at newegg.

Retail configuration BS is the WORST.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Its what I kept saying. Record sales of K and GTX

Skylake K CPUs sold like hotcakes with a solid Haswell backing.

(Posted in Skylake thread)

If this is true, could the consumer desktop space be basically bifuricating, into an extreme low-end, as well as an extreme high-end (gamers, enthusiasts, and professionals)? Walter Mossberg wrote about that happening in the laptop space, in his Lenovo IdeaPad 100s review.

Is this happening in the desktop space too?

Obviously, a certain subset of desktop consumers are fixated only at the highest-end of CPUs, and don't like to "muddle around the middle" of the product stack.

Yet, Atom continues to exist and thrive at the low end. (Though, arguably, Atom in any form shouldn't be used for a desktop PC, due to poor single-thread performance.)

Edit: I'll add that I personally, basically just buy what I can afford in a single month. If I had more financial discipline, perhaps I could save up for something "nicer". (Thinking of getting an i5-6400 or i5-6500, depending on prices, in Feb. If I don't cheap out and get a G3900, for my H110 board, then I can give that rig to a friend after I finish testing it out.)

 

[Arachnotronic]

This has been an issue forever. Even at HP and such, where you can custom configure a system, you often have to get to pretty serious CPUs before they even let you add in a midrange GPU. Like an i3 with a 960? no way. You NEED an i5 for that video card.

I just checked HP's website, and yeah, you can't configure an i3 with an R9 370 or GTX960, you can with an i5, but get this... the i5 is 12GB minimum and the same price as an i7 with 8GB... Yeah... the i5 can't be configured with 8GB but the i7 can. You heard it here first people. i5s need at least 12 GB RAM.

By the way, you can upgrade the 8GB i7 to 16 GB RAM for ONLY an additional $120. Yep, 8 additional GB for the low low price of almost twice what 16GB will cost you at newegg.

Retail configuration BS is the WORST.

OEMs want to make as much money as they can, which is why you see this.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Could any of this have to do with the economy going to Hell in a handbasket in 2008 and the ensuing jobless "recovery?"

I think the "longer lifecycle" thing is only partly caused by Intel not having had a huge jump the likes of Nehalem-->Sandybridge; the other part of the story would be that the long lifecycles are caused by people who can't bloody afford a new machine and so make do.

Typed from my 8 year old Thinkpad, who moves me to tears with how tough she is and how much abuse she withstands.

Have to disagree. PCs are cheaper than ever in real dollars. I am speaking for the US, BTW. I think it is not a matter of people not being able to afford them as that they are not considered "cool" and they are spending money on other things. Lets face it, nearly everyone has a smartphone, and even at a bargain basement no contract data plan price of 40.00 per month, one could buy a new PC every year.

 

[krumme]

OEMs want to make as much money as they can, which is why you see this.

Like buying a car in my country. Lol. Oldest trick in the book.

 

[USER8000]

Yes, because I buy it. The lowest of the low-end. So do, I figure, millions of other people. People on a budget, people that have never quite known a REALLY high-end rig, people that believe in only buying a computer as powerful as you need, people that think that by buying a lower-end, but lower-powered PC, that they are "saving the environment", etc.

Discuss. The "problem" of the existence of low-end / "just good enough" computing. The lack of catering to enthusiasts, by and large. The slowing / reversing of the practical version of Moore's Law, that used to at least mean that buying a new PC five years later, would get you a faster one, which isn't even true anymore.

Dude,your not the only one. I am still rocking an Ivy Bridge Core i7 and only have sub £200 graphics cards.

In the end,like me,most of my mates are using computer parts for longer as most of the time,as they are good enough for most of the games we play.

Have to disagree. PCs are cheaper than ever in real dollars. I am speaking for the US, BTW. I think it is not a matter of people not being able to afford them as that they are not considered "cool" and they are spending money on other things. Lets face it, nearly everyone has a smartphone, and even at a bargain basement no contract data plan price of 40.00 per month, one could buy a new PC every year.

Hard to say for parts like dGPUs as people are increasingly buying a tier above what they would normally have bought even 5 to 10 years ago,and thats because Nvidia and AMD have quietly mucked around with their ranges.

For laptops I would say they are cheaper, even in the UK, and that includes gaming capable ones with a dGPU.

 

[dark zero]

Longer life cycle has nothing to do with Intel products, IMO. The average Jane/Joe doesn't sit there looking at benchmarks to decide when to upgrade her/his current PC.

The average Joe/Jane tends to buy a new PC when his/her old system no longer does the job required. This could be due to a number of factors including:

1. System/major component is broken
2. System is just too slow, even for basic tasks
3. Battery won't hold enough of a charge for the user's daily use

Outside of enthusiasts (who upgrade at quite a rapid clip), most people don't actually get a "warm fuzzy" from buying a new PC. It is a "need" not a "want" for most people, so if they can get more life out of their pre-existing systems, then they will.

And well... make it worse?
The average Joe is moving to Android tablets since it can do all the same since there are similar apps on there with the portable factor... Just a tablet and then a portable keyboard and that's all. they don't need to buy a big a** PC or a NUC in order what they need to do.

Windows tablets are better (thanks to Office 365), however you need to have a very good tablet/convertible since Atoms one kills the performance hard.

 

[TeknoBug]

Well those Atom & Cherry Trail mini sticks and PCs are taking off so it's not just Larry buying them. The sticks are making a great companion for modern TV's since most has a USB next to the HDMI slot which the stick fits perfectly into and with bluetooth mouse/keyboard you can stream from Steam, watch Netflix, Shomi, Hulu etc. if you don't have a smart TV (even though I have 2 smart TV's I rather use the laptop or mini PC due to smart TV apps usually sucking).

And well... make it worse?
The average Joe is moving to Android tablets since it can do all the same since there are similar apps on there with the portable factor... Just a tablet and then a portable keyboard and that's all. they don't need to buy a big a** PC or a NUC in order what they need to do.

Windows tablets are better (thanks to Office 365), however you need to have a very good tablet/convertible since Atoms one kills the performance hard.

Although I like Android phones and the Android OS altogether (aside at how Google mines data from users), I can't say the same for Android tablets- I don't like them, I have 3 of them here and never use them because Windows tablets and iPad are better.

 

[Revolution 11]

The phone isn't code bloat. Its direct sabotage.

Codecs are so rapid now so Apple, Intel, AMD and NVidia cant even keep up. And why do we need 2 codecs for the same thing, HEVC and VP9 with delayed announcement? More sales.

OEMs and retail outlets is the winner and its those in control. Same when you wonder why AMD or NVidia rebrands graphics cards for no reason. 8000 and 800 series for example. Its not because AMD or NVidia wants to. Its because they are told to by OEMs.

Codec development has nothing to do with boosting retail profits. The reason codecs are moving so fast is because there is a need for them.

The first goal is to reduce bandwidth usage. In the US, there is effectively little to no ISP competition. We have drastically lower bandwidth speeds and pay more for what we do get compared to other first-world nations. And this is just the consumer side. On the enterprise side, online video is surging and making up an ever-increasing slice of the bandwidth pie. New more efficient codecs will help somewhat with both these problems.

The second goal is to transition to a new resolution standard (4K/UHD). This normally will require a lot more bandwidth, which is difficult to accept considering point 1 above. New codecs will help in this as well.

So you can blame monopolistic ISPs, lackluster regulation against ISPs, 4K/UHD, and increasing video consumption (especially in power and bandwidth-starved mobile platforms) as the reason for new and more codecs.

 

[Shivansps]

take a look at this
http://www.jaguarboard.org/index.php