What things can Intel and AMD do to make the desktop a better value?

[Insert_Nickname]

How about a monitor docking-station standard for NUCs? Maybe even MiniITX, though I think they're a little too big. Just snap the system onto the back of the monitor!

You can already do that with a few ITX cases, but I do agree, a "docking station" for multi-monitor set-ups would be nice. Kind of like a super-MST hub for DisplayPort with additional connectors. In a pinch I'd settle for a dual DisplayPort or dual HDMI NUC or equivalent.

 

[blackened23]

CPUs are much much cheaper than back then. I dont know why you wish to compare a Celeron 300A for example to an i5. A Celeron 300A in todays money would be around 225$(It retailed at 149$). Celerons today sell for 40-50$.

Specially mainstream/performance desktop products got a huge pricecut in 2006.

CPUs never been cheaper than they are today.

If you take inflation into account, yes. Dude, that was the ENTIRE POINT .....that CPUs haven't changed in price with inflation, therefore, when you take inflation into account, CPUs are cheaper.

Anyway, the celeron 300a overclocked to 450mhz at the time and was equal to the flagship P4 in performance in games. In other applications, perhaps the P4 was better, ...but games? They were equal more or less. But you had to OC it. In context, it was probably better than current i5's while it was relevant. I think maybe you weren't around back then. What celerons are NOW is NOT what celerons were back then. It was a mid level chip that overclocked to flagship performance. The i5 is a mid level chip that overclocks to NEAR flagship performance.(games) Hence the price comparison. Of course you could also buy a P55C Pentium and OC it as well. Now with the celeron line, if you buy a Haswell celeron, you get a weak CPU that will never OC to flagship performance. THAT is why I compared the 300a to an i5. The celerons were not low end junk back then. The 300a was a mid level chip that overclocked to flagship performance, just like the i5 is now.

Celeron's have not always been super cheap junk as they are now. FYI. Celerons have gone from being amazing to not so good to decent to garbage. Currently garbage. The 300a was not garbage, it was an AMAZING chip.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If you take inflation into account, yes. Dude, that was the ENTIRE POINT .....that CPUs haven't changed in price with inflation, therefore, when you take inflation into account, CPUs are cheaper.

Anyway, the celeron 300a overclocked to 450mhz at the time and was equal to the flagship P4 in performance in games. In other applications, perhaps the P4 was better, ...but games? They were equal more or less. But you had to OC it. In context, it was probably better than current i5's while it was relevant. I think maybe you weren't around back then. What celerons are NOW is NOT what celerons were back then. It was a mid level chip that overclocked to flagship performance. The i5 is a mid level chip that overclocks to NEAR flagship performance.(games) Hence the price comparison. Of course you could also buy a P55C Pentium and OC it as well. Now with the celeron line, if you buy a Haswell celeron, you get a weak CPU that will never OC to flagship performance. THAT is why I compared the 300a to an i5. The celerons were not low end junk back then. The 300a was a mid level chip that overclocked to flagship performance, just like the i5 is now.

Celeron's have not always been super cheap junk as they are now. FYI. Celerons have gone from being amazing to not so good to decent to garbage. Currently garbage. The 300a was not garbage, it was an AMAZING chip.

Why not compare the Celeron 300A at 149$ back then to the 72$ G3258? Both overclocks the same amount.

Or we can compare a 200$ i5 to a 2600$ Pentium Pro 200 with 1MB. A Pentium Pro that would be around 4000$ in todays money.

Also you cant just remove inflation and any price index correction.

 

[blackened23]

I already explained it to you. Anyone that actually was around back then would know this, but the Celerons NOW are NOT what celerons were then. The celeron 300a only had less cache than the P4, while celerons now are utter garbage. Even the current day pentium is less than what the celeron 300a was.

Were you around back then? I made the comparison because IT MADE SENSE. Pentiums were not always low end dual core junk. Celerons were not always cheap garbage bin junk

The Celeron 300a was a mid chip that overclocked to flagship performance. CELERONS NOW ARE NOT WHAT CELERONS WERE THEN.

Celeron or Pentium now: EXTREME LOW END, low performance

Celeron 300a: mid chip that overclocked to top level flagship P4 performance. Only had less cache which did not matter in games. Similar to the i5.

Get it? Anyone that had a 300a with an Abit BH6 (I know there are a few out there) know what i'm talking about.

The current celeron and pentium chips are not mid chips that overclock to flagship performance. The 300a was just that. The i5-4690k is also that. The comparison makes sense. Both are near 200$ at retail. By the way, back then, MSRP prices didn't mean squat. You didn't have amazon or newegg back then. Back then, it cost around 200$ at retail because you HAD to buy it at a B+M store for all intents and purposes.

A mid level chip costs 200$ now and overclocks to flagship performance. The mid level 300a overclocks to flagship performance and at B+M retail was usually around 200$. Remember. MSRP didn't mean JACK back then.

 

[blackened23]

Just FYI, I do agree w/ the point that CPU prices haven't changed. In fact I said JUST THAT before you did. Considering inflation or whatever metric you want to use. CPUs are the same prices or lower than they were 20 years ago. I don't disagree w/ this.

My disagreement is your perception of the Celeron line. The celeron line now is low end, EXTREME low end. The celeron was not always extreme low end, there were times where it was an awesome mid range chip that overclocked to flagship level performance. Drawing a parallel, this is similar to the i5 now. Mid range chip that overclocks to flagship performance or within 1-2% of flagship performance in games. Do you get the comparison now? Celeron now != Celeron back then.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You cant compare a overclock to stock.

Also you reject the G3258 in that case. 1/3 of the price that your Celeron 300A would cost today.

 

[SPBHM]

You cant compare a overclock to stock.

Also you reject the G3258 in that case. 1/3 of the price that your Celeron 300A would cost today.

g3258 is hopeless compared to an i7 4770 or whatever, even at 5GHz vs stock;

the 300A could perform as well as the PII 450
let's consider the modern equivalent an i5K, the I5k with max OC is not comparable to the equivalent of the PII 450 (i7 4960x!?)


Pentium II 450 $669 August 1998
Celeron 300A $149 August 1998

I don't think Intel had anything cheaper at the time excluding old CPUs?
less than 1/3 of the money, almost the same performance when OCed, that's impossible today.

 

[ShintaiDK]

g3258 is hopeless compared to an i7 4770 or whatever, even at 5GHz vs stock;

the 300A could perform as well as the PII 450
let's consider the modern equivalent an i5K, the I5k with max OC is not comparable to the equivalent of the PII 450 (i7 4960x!?)


Pentium II 450 $669 August 1998
Celeron 300A $149 August 1998

I don't think Intel had anything cheaper at the time excluding old CPUs?
less than 1/3 of the money, almost the same performance when OCed, that's impossible today.

You can always find some kind of same setup when you use OC vs stock.

I can also OC a Lynnfield and show how it beat a Nehalem at 1/3rd or even 1/4th the price. It just doesnt validate it.

 

[SPBHM]

You can always find some kind of same setup when you use OC vs stock.

I can also OC a Lynnfield and show how it beat a Nehalem at 1/3rd or even 1/4th the price. It just doesnt validate it.

even OC vs OC made the 300A look good.


OC vs OC $150 vs $670 CPU from 08/1998

maybe lynnfield i7 (5 years ago) also looked good compared to the 975, but right now nothing comparable is possible as far as I know.

 

[JustMe21]

I would like to see sleep states similar to tablets, so there's an "Instant On" feel and the Connected Standby on the regular processors. Also, a selectable low power speed so you can determine how slow your computer gets at idle or when it isn't running CPU intense applications. Technology such as Nvidia's Optimus or AMD's Enduro in Desktop systems is also good to have.

Also, a dockable screen of various sizes, so when you have it docked, it uses the Desktop processor and when it's undocked, it uses a low powered tablet processor. or make the dock capable of handling multiple size screens, so you aren't limited.

Another thing I would like to see is Microsoft set a minimum IGP graphics performance standard for certification and make Windows able to be skinned to run as a console system. They could have done this instead of Xbox. The original Diablo comes to mind as it installed a few files, but primarily ran off CD.

 

[MisterMac]

MOAR IPC.


...and drastic ammounts of it.
Just genuine absolutely spanking brand new IPC across legacy and newer instructions.

If intel dropped a 50% raw IPC chip - comparing to previous generation, kept it locked for Desktop.

Then you'd see some serious sales.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I already explained it to you. Anyone that actually was around back then would know this, but the Celerons NOW are NOT what celerons were then. The celeron 300a only had less cache than the P4, while celerons now are utter garbage. Even the current day pentium is less than what the celeron 300a was.

Were you around back then? I made the comparison because IT MADE SENSE. Pentiums were not always low end dual core junk. Celerons were not always cheap garbage bin junk

Do you recall what the L2-cache-less Celerons, like the 266, were like? They WERE "garbage". Much like the P4 Celerons, they were cachestrated beyond belief.

 

[Atreidin]

Do you recall what the L2-cache-less Celerons, like the 266, were like? They WERE "garbage". Much like the P4 Celerons, they were cachestrated beyond belief.

That's for sure. Until the 300a, the word "Celeron" was synonymous with "garbage". It was so bad, and so many people who experienced them hated them so much, that it is actually surprising that Intel stuck with it, and managed to get rid of the "ew, throw it away" vibe that a computer with one would have. Even non tech geeks hated them. They'd ask, "Why is this so slow?" and when the response was "It has a Celeron", that explanation stuck with them for years. Explaining to non computer nerds that had experienced the L2 cache-less Celerons that even though the new processor had the same name as the old turd they knew and hated, it wouldn't make them want to throw their computer out the window, was an exercise in futility.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Regarding multiple users on the same OS, I found out this is possible with Ubuntu:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Multiseat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiseat_configuration



And here is an old tutorial I found:

http://www.linuxtoys.org/multiseat/multiseat.html

While I tend to agree this is pretty cool, I always get kind of weirded out by shades of the 1990s.

"Mom, get off the internet, I'm trying to use the phone!" would turn into "Mom, set up your Handbrake encodes to run overnight, I'm trying to play StarCraft!"

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Do you recall what the L2-cache-less Celerons, like the 266, were like? They WERE "garbage". Much like the P4 Celerons, they were cachestrated beyond belief.

You can say that again. P4 Celerons were even worse because they where usually accompanied by Intel "Extreme" Graphics, which besides being slow as ****, used the main CPU for some of the graphics pipeline. Needless to say, throwing graphics calculations on top of an already overtaxed Celeron was a recipe for anaemic performance...

 

[ninaholic37]

Are Celerons (and Pentiums) switching to Atom completely next-gen? Will Broadwell just have Core-M and i3-i7? Maybe the Pentium "20th anniversary edition" was it's goodbye party, going out with a bang, or something.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Are Celerons (and Pentiums) switching to Atom completely next-gen? Will Broadwell just have Core-M and i3-i7? Maybe the Pentium "20th anniversary edition" was it's goodbye party, going out with a bang, or something.

Nothing points to that no. They will simply coexist in 2 very different TDP segments. Not to mention very different performance.

 

[witeken]

Are Celerons (and Pentiums) switching to Atom completely next-gen?

I think Atom is switching to Braswell.

 

[Spungo]

Yup. Does any gamer really need a case larger than this?

Microsoft had this idea several years ago - putting high performance CPU and graphics in a very small package. You can see how well that worked:

 

[SPBHM]

Microsoft had this idea several years ago - putting high performance CPU and graphics in a very small package. You can see how well that worked:

I think the problem was with the solders from the GPU?

anyway

this had a full gaming PC inside including the PSU (unlike the xbox 360) in 2001

it's probably the most durable console I've owned.

size is not much different than the original 360 and ps3

 

[zir_blazer]

Multiseat computers are totally possible currently with virtualization. Nearly all shortcomings are related to the GPU. While it can be used inside a VM with passthrough, in that way only one VM can make use of it. Is still very hard to actually virtualize the GPU so all VMs can use it in the same fashion as the CPU. nVidia had their GRID line which was supposed to be used for this purpose, and AMD had a line called Radeon Sky which I don't recall that anyone mentioned again after the initial articles.
Yes, if you have one guy doing heavy horsework with the computer, chances are that other feels it. While you can add another GPU, were mainstream LGA 1150 Processors not enough CPU for peak usage, you will be forced to switch to the much more expensive LGA 2011 platform. Add in Dual Processors too, heh.

 

[Unoid]

AMD to release a high end competing product with intel. That way there will be a price war and intel won't be able to milk customers and neuter chip features/cores as they do now.

 

[Spungo]

AMD to release a high end competing product with intel. That way there will be a price war and intel won't be able to milk customers and neuter chip features/cores as they do now.

What we really need from AMD is better performance per core. Having more cores is great, but a lot of things only use 1 core. One that comes to mind is the process of installing or uninstalling Microsoft components. MSIEXE will always use 100% of 1 core and nothing more.

There's not much AMD can do about this. They're already trying their best. It would be great if they could make a single core processor with 1 core was as fast as the fastest overclocked i7 core, but that's easier said than done. If they were capable of doing this, it would already be done.

 

[TechFan1]

I want a smaller, lighter gaming pc that still has competitive performance and graphics, while still maintaining my ability to upgrade select pieces as necessary. It would be nice if it fit in my duffel bag with mouse and keyboard when going to LAN with friends.

 

[Homeles]

I think the problem was with the solders from the GPU?

That was the major underlying issue, yes. The industry ran into problems when they were forced to make the switch to lead-free solder.