Less impressed with processor performance increases than graphics

[Herr Kutz]

A few months ago I remarked that I was amazed that integrated graphics are now much faster then my several year old (and admittedly low end) dedicated graphics card. Today I randomly decided to compare my nearly 8 year old desktop processor to my 5th gen laptop processor (i3-530 vs i5-5200u) and was expecting to be similarly blown away despite the different thermal classes. Imagine my surprise when i found the laptop processor is only slightly faster. Have processors just not advanced nearly as much over the past few years?

 

[UsandThem]

Today I randomly decided to compare my nearly 8 year old desktop processor to my 5th gen laptop processor (i3-530 vs i5-5200u) and was expecting to be similarly blown away despite the different thermal classes. Imagine my surprise when i found the laptop processor is only slightly faster. Have processors just not advanced nearly as much over the past few years?

CPUs rarely make a performance jump like GPUs do from generation to generation. Ever since Sandy Bridge, Intel has on average increased performance by roughly 10% each generation. However, they have been more focused on power usage as the desktop market is decreasing.

But one thing to point out, mobile CPUs are designed for a balance of power/performance, and CPUs like the 5200u is a low power dual core CPU that really shouldn't be compared to desktop CPUs (you can, but as you found out they offer lower performance). The "HQ" mobile CPUs are quad core, and much more competitive to their desktop counterparts since they use more power at the expense of battery life (unlike the "U" CPUs).

 

[Reinvented]

A few months ago I remarked that I was amazed that integrated graphics are now much faster then my several year old (and admittedly low end) dedicated graphics card. Today I randomly decided to compare my nearly 8 year old desktop processor to my 5th gen laptop processor (i3-530 vs i5-5200u) and was expecting to be similarly blown away despite the different thermal classes. Imagine my surprise when i found the laptop processor is only slightly faster. Have processors just not advanced nearly as much over the past few years?

I think it's pretty unreasonable to compare a Desktop class CPU with higher clock speeds to mobile CPU's which are clocked lower to achieve those thermal profiles. They've advanced quite a bit over the years.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Maybe so, but my older dedicated desktop graphics card (still in use by me today) is much slower than mobile kaby lake integrated graphics. WOW!

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Mobile SoCs are still exciting to follow. Snapdragon 845 is said to be 20% higher than previous 835 in single thread. Who knows what Improvements Apple A12 will bring next year

 

[Qasar]

Herr Kutz,

i know some will disagree with this..

but part of the reason why the performance of Intel cpus havent increased much, as UsandThem mentioned.. 10% each generation, is partly due to lack of competition... AMD hasnt been strong enough to compete with intel in the mid to high end ranges, so there was no reason or motivation to increase performance more then the 10%... and like UsandThem also mentioned.. intel was a little more focused on power usage... but with the Zen architecture, aka ryzen..... that has changed a little

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Herr Kutz,

i know some will disagree with this..

but part of the reason why the performance of Intel cpus havent increased much, as UsandThem mentioned.. 10% each generation, is partly due to lack of competition... AMD hasnt been strong enough to compete with intel in the mid to high end ranges, so there was no reason or motivation to increase performance more then the 10%... and like UsandThem also mentioned.. intel was a little more focused on power usage... but with the Zen architecture, aka ryzen..... that has changed a little

AMD’s effect on Intel’s performance is minimal at best if we’re talking about performance on a per-core basis. I don’t think we’re going to see another generational leap like we saw with Core 2 as the low-hanging fruit has largely been picked. Even the argument that AMD “forced” Intel to release CPUs with higher core counts is untrue; the only effect AMD has had here was to cause Intel to push up Coffee Lake’s release by a few months. Intel had 6+ core CPUs on their roadmap for a long, long time,

What Intel CAN do is launch higher-clocked CPUs which will pull further and further ahead of AMD. This is why the Ryzen refresh will be so interesting, as it will tell us how much AMD has improved clockspeeds. The 4 GHz wall on existing Ryzens really hurt them with overclockers IMO.

 

[SPBHM]

at some point we even had clear performance regression for CPUs on typical laptops due to most switching from 35W to 15W CPUs,

so comparing to a desktop, yes, it's not going to look amazing,

 

[hojnikb]

try comparing that with a i3 8100. You'll see it's much faster.

 

[mikk]

https://ark.intel.com/de/products/46472/Intel-Core-i3-530-Processor-4M-Cache-2_93-GHz

i3-530 was a 73W desktop SKU! i5-5200U is a mobile 15W SKU based on Broadwell and outdated by today's standard, KBL-R does beat it by a huge margin in the same TDP budget.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Apples to oranges comparison. You are seriously comparing a ~75 watt desktop processor to a 15 watt mobile processor? And yes, as posters continue to fail to consider in these forums when complaining about the relative slow cpu improvements, igp performance improved rapidly (although it has flattened out now) because it was in the early stages of development while cpus are already in the mature stage where improvements are increasingly difficult.

Even in mobile cpus, performance seems lower because intel (wrongly IMO) used the improvements in performance/watt to lower the TDP of the mobile cpus from 35 watts to 15 watts instead of increasing performance. There has been a pretty significant increase in mobile cpu performance in the 15 watt envelope with the KL refresh 15 watt quad core cpus, with four real cores plus high turbos for single thread performance.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Apples to oranges comparison. You are seriously comparing a ~75 watt desktop processor to a 15 watt mobile processor? And yes, as posters continue to fail to consider in these forums when complaining about the relative slow cpu improvements, igp performance improved rapidly (although it has flattened out now) because it was in the early stages of development while cpus are already in the mature stage where improvements are increasingly difficult.

Even in mobile cpus, performance seems lower because intel (wrongly IMO) used the improvements in performance/watt to lower the TDP of the mobile cpus from 35 watts to 15 watts instead of increasing performance. There has been a pretty significant increase in mobile cpu performance in the 15 watt envelope with the KL refresh 15 watt quad core cpus, with four real cores plus high turbos for single thread performance.

Pretty what Mikk said while I was typing.

 

[dullard]

With graphics, the work being done is almost perfectly parallel. Add one more graphical computational unit to a GPU and suddenly you have a faster GPU. That is technically simple to do and will almost always increase performance. The only limitation is how much people are willing to spend for larger and larger GPU chips.

For CPUs, the workload is only partially parallel. Sure you can add another core or two and that might help in some program tasks but won't help at all in others (it could even hurt if your power management and/or CPU-to-CPU data sharing isn't good enough). To truly increase CPU speeds you need a breakthrough in materials, optics, CPU layout, etc. Waiting for a major scientific breakthrough for much faster CPUs has been slow for the last decade and is going to continue to be slow from here on out.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Maybe so, but my older dedicated desktop graphics card (still in use by me today) is much slower than mobile kaby lake integrated graphics. WOW!

Might one inquire as to what specific card we're talking about...?

i3-530 was a 73W desktop SKU! i5-5200U is a mobile 15W SKU based on Broadwell and outdated by today's standard, KBL-R does beat it by a huge margin in the same TDP budget.

Impressive in its own way. A 15W mobile CPU managing to be a bit faster then a 2010 73W desktop CPU.

 

[Cogman]

CPU performance is stagnating because the same ole techniques that we've been using to make them go faster are starting to run dry.

I believe in the not too distant future, we are going to start seeing much more radical changes in CPU design, but not until after a few more years of stagnation. That is when things will get exciting.

I think we will see manufactures try doing silly things like integrating FPGAs, but ultimately, I think the next big thing that will really positively change the way CPUs work is going to be clockless CPUs. Imagine a CPU that doesn't use any power when the computer is sitting idle.

 

[epsilon84]

No offence intended, but for an iGPU (and a rather weak one at that, let's be honest) to be ”much faster” than your dGPU, you must have had a very low end GPU.

Not sure using Intel graphics is the best way to show how far we have come in terms of GPU improvements.

On the whole, I do agree with you though, nowadays apart from adding more cores, we aren't really getting any major improvements in CPU technology. IPC and clockspeed improvements are improving at a snails pace, as others have said all the low hanging fruit has been picked clean long ago.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Imagine my surprise when i found the laptop processor is only slightly faster. Have processors just not advanced nearly as much over the past few years?

They are not comparable at all. When a CPU is 20% faster, it becomes 20% faster in everything. When a GPU becomes 20% faster, its much more specialized. For example for most consumers, its just in games.

Plus, 20% on a GPU is worth far less than 20% on a CPU. You'd want to double your frames from 20 to 40, not go from 20 to 24, because 24 is just as unplayable as 20.

Naturally then its a tradeoff. CPUs accelerate everything, so the gains are lot less. GPUs need more work and is specialized, but the gains are far greater in the applications you use. If a CPU gained as much as a GPU, no one would buy a GPU, because a general purpose unit is far more valuable. If a GPU was capable of running everything a CPU does, then everyone would use a GPU.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

You can thank AMD for 6 core I5s and 4 core i3s

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

AMD’s effect on Intel’s performance is minimal at best if we’re talking about performance on a per-core basis. I don’t think we’re going to see another generational leap like we saw with Core 2 as the low-hanging fruit has largely been picked. Even the argument that AMD “forced” Intel to release CPUs with higher core counts is untrue; the only effect AMD has had here was to cause Intel to push up Coffee Lake’s release by a few months. Intel had 6+ core CPUs on their roadmap for a long, long time,

What Intel CAN do is launch higher-clocked CPUs which will pull further and further ahead of AMD. This is why the Ryzen refresh will be so interesting, as it will tell us how much AMD has improved clockspeeds. The 4 GHz wall on existing Ryzens really hurt them with overclockers IMO.

How is intel gonna do that after 7nm? Keep clocking higher is defying the laws of physics.

 

[Qasar]

Indycoltsfan... you keep thinking that... but... wouldnt it be logical to say that if there is no strong competition in any market, then then there is no reason to really push yourself ?

with all the money, engineers and such that intel has at its disposal.. you would think they would be able to make a cpu that, only at its best, give a 10% increase over the previous gen cpu.. this shows how lack of competition has partly caused the cpu market to stagnate as you put it... " I don’t think we’re going to see another generational leap like we saw with Core 2 as the low-hanging fruit has largely been picked " and because of the Athlon 64, we got the Core architecture in the 1st place, cause amd was able to catch intel with their pants down... back then.. an athlon 64 was the cpu to get for performance, not intel.. over the years we have seen AMD innovate and come up with new things more then intel has, cause AMD had to in order to compete with intel... where is intel innovation over the last few years ???????

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Indycoltsfan... you keep thinking that... but... wouldnt it be logical to say that if there is no strong competition in any market, then then there is no reason to really push yourself ?

with all the money, engineers and such that intel has at its disposal.. you would think they would be able to make a cpu that, only at its best, give a 10% increase over the previous gen cpu.. this shows how lack of competition has partly caused the cpu market to stagnate as you put it... " I don’t think we’re going to see another generational leap like we saw with Core 2 as the low-hanging fruit has largely been picked " and because of the Athlon 64, we got the Core architecture in the 1st place, cause amd was able to catch intel with their pants down... back then.. an athlon 64 was the cpu to get for performance, not intel.. over the years we have seen AMD innovate and come up with new things more then intel has, cause AMD had to in order to compete with intel... where is intel innovation over the last few years ???????

Are you an engineer by chance? Because I am and I can tell you that Intel is innovating, just in different areas such as performance per watt. Intel knows the PC market is dying and is focusing on power consumption for mobile use.

I’m not saying competition doesn’t help. I’m saying that there is no evidence that Intel released higher core count CPUs because of Ryzen. The only conclusion one can make is that Intel moved up Coffee Lake’s release by a couple of months. Intel has had 6+ cores on their roadmap for years but AMd fans want to ignore that fact.

Yeah, let’s talk about Intel “getting caught with its pants down” with the Athlon 64 release whereas AMD has been utterly destroyed over the past decade by Intel. Where was AMD’s alleged innovation then? AMD got fat, lazy, and arrogant and wasn’t innovating at all and hasn’t for a decade until Ryzen. Your assertion that they innovate more is laughable - let’s not forget that unlike with the Athlon 64, AMD is still behind in performance. Even with your so called “lack of innovation” for years, Intel STILL holds the performance crown. And this is coming from someone who owns 2 Ryzen systems and who owned Athlon XP and Athlon 64 systems.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How is intel gonna do that after 7nm? Keep clocking higher is defying the laws of physics.

We’re not at 7 nm yet. The whole industry and not just Intel will have to consider new materials and technology in the next few years.

 

[epsilon84]

You can thank AMD for 6 core I5s and 4 core i3s

Actually if AMD was more competitive years ago we would have seen this a lot earlier.

AMD has had 6 cores on desktop since the Phenom X6 but did Intel bother to respond with their own 6C desktop chip?

It's only really Ryzen that has forced Intel to accelerate their CFL plans, and only by a matter of months, so no, I'm not going to 'thank AMD' because their incompetence in the Bulldozer years is part of the reason why for many years we got tiny incremental increases and were stuck at 4C/8T for so long

Am I thankful that we finally have competition in the CPU space? You bet. It's many years too late, but better late than never.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Are you an engineer by chance? Because I am and I can tell you that Intel is innovating, just in different areas such as performance per watt. Intel knows the PC market is dying and is focusing on power consumption for mobile use.

I’m not saying competition doesn’t help. I’m saying that there is no evidence that Intel released higher core count CPUs because of Ryzen. The only conclusion one can make is that Intel moved up Coffee Lake’s release by a couple of months.

Yeah, let’s talk about Intel “getting caught with its pants down” with the Athlon 64 release whereas AMD has been utterly destroyed over the past decade by Intel. Where was AMD’s alleged innovation then? AMD got fat, lazy, and arrogant and wasn’t innovating at all and hasn’t for a decade. Your assertion that they innovate more is laughable - let’s not forget that unlike with the Athlon 64, AMD is still behind in performance. Even with your so called “lack of innovation” for years, Intel STILL holds the performance crown.

Yea, these threads always seem to ultimately degenerate into intel bashing and blaming them for the "lack of progress" from whatever cpus "should" have been. Of course, AMD had no responsibility for causing lack of competition by designing Bulldozer. And in reality, nobody really knows how much better cpus would have been with this magical competition. My feeling is we would have had somewhat lower prices and more cores sooner, but ultimately be pretty much where we are now. But now now that AMD is at least competitive, let's see if these huge year to year improvements actually materialize.

 

[Ken g6]

I think we will see manufactures try doing silly things like integrating FPGAs, but ultimately, I think the next big thing that will really positively change the way CPUs work is going to be clockless CPUs. Imagine a CPU that doesn't use any power when the computer is sitting idle.

I look forward to learning how to program an FPGA on a CPU.

But we can almost get to zero idle power now. Intel is supposed to be adding the ability to set different clock speeds on different cores soon. Another step should be the ability to turn cores off independently. Add a HT Atom core, a la big.LITTLE, and you can turn off all the other cores at idle.