What's with the rise of "good enough" computing? It seems a step backwards.

[VirtualLarry]

Isn't the invention of the Atom and the Brazos CPUs, basically the big industry players thumbing their nose up at Moore's law?

CPUs always got faster/better/cheaper, until Atom hit the scene, then it stagnated in terms of design, power-consumption, and performance for so long. (Soon to be remedied by their new 22nm OoO design.)

Anyways, I don't have a clear picture of where I'm going with this thread, other than I was just browsing Desktop PCs at Newegg, and the cheapest new one is an Acer "Veriton" Nettop, with Linux, and get this, 2GB of RAM! Only 2GB. What are they thinking???

It's companies that cripple their pre-made PCs, that are still being sold today, that affect how application developers write their code. Who wants to take the plunge and take advantage of 8GB of RAM on the desktop, when it could make the application run faster, if the application also has to run on their anemically-supplied PCs with only 2GB of RAM.

I'm sure most of you well know the story of the Intel Netbook (TM). How MS and Intel conspired to cripple the specs of these "Netbooks", so as to not undercut the demand and pricing for regular laptops. But crippling innovation in that sector pretty massively.

Who knows, if MS/Intel hadn't crippled Netbooks, perhaps the flood of Android/ARM tablets wouldn't have happened, because we all would have been using NON-crippled updated "Netbooks" instead.

I own an Acer Aspire One 722 "Netbook" (but not Netbook (TM)), with a C-60, 4GB of RAM, 1366x768, and I threw in a 120GB SSD. It's actually quite decent to use for web browsing, unlike those Atom 1.6Ghz single-core POS Netbook(TM)s, with their 1GB of RAM and 1024x600 screens. Who in the world would have ever thought such a low-res screen was a good idea? Especially since Windows ever since quite a while has basically required a x768 screen.

So my argument is this, "good enough" computing has set the industry, or at least, Intel and Microsoft, back quite a bit. People aren't demanding performance in their PCs anymore. Thus less high-end R&D, which always used to trickle-down to mainstream computing.

We can see that with Haswell, it doesn't clock any higher than IB so far, instead, it is supposedly more power-efficient, at the base/stock clocks it was designed for.

We can also see it, in a lack of 8-core consumer offerings from Intel. Not even a 6-core yet. 4-core was so 2006.

 

[escrow4]

I agree 100%. I built an office box this week and put an i5 and 16GB RAM in it. Sure a Celeron is "good enough" but I reject good enough. I want grunt. I want overkill. When I upgrade and buy a new laptop it will be a metabox from Clevo, not something slower off the shelf.

Sadly, us enthusiasts are a dying breed, and we've always been marginal either way.

EDIT: Its also retarded that Intel doesn't even offer quad-cores with no iGPU but higher speeds in exchange. I bet a 3670K would sell huge amounts if it was clocked at 4.0Ghz stock with no iGPU (which is useless anyway), and all silicon dedicated to the CPU.

 

[Ventanni]

We only see "good enough" performance in the desktop area. Companies go where the money is, and ever since Apple introduced the first iPhone, there's been a smartphone, mobile revolution that has circumvented the globe. Since consumer demand now expects higher performance, better quality, and lower pricing in the mobile sector, companies simply respond to the challenge.

I'm sitting here typing away this post on my old Core 2 Duo machine, which I bought in 2006. I've since turned it into a HTPC, but its basic functionality isn't a whole lot different than my main computer, listed below. All the games I play on my 3770k I can also play on my HTPC, albeit at a lower quality, but the experience is still the same.

The same cannot be said with the mobile platform. If you're still holding onto the original iPhone or equivalent hardware, then you're in for a real treat once you upgrade to something like a Galaxy S4 or iPhone 5. That's where company R&D has shifted, because that's where the money is. Even Intel is responding to it. Heck, even AMD is responding to it.

At some point, mobile performance will also begin to stagnate, because that "good enough" experience will have been reached. That doesn't mean that desktop computing has been given to the wayside. My 3770k is certainly faster than my Core2 Duo by a very, very noticeable amount. But unlike 10 years ago, it's just not as important to me as it once was. As long as I can play, I'm happy.

Now if I can't view my Starcraft 2 streaming on my phone, I'll be pissed off! ;-)

 

[monstercameron]

It seems obvious to me...the iPad is a prime example...no own seems to be able compete on specs alone these days, good enough computing is a pivot to software and user experiences. Sure the nexus 10 has a higher res display and sure the transformer tf700 has a keyboard and better battery life but the iPad has better experience...

This is also infecting main stream desktop hardware. We don't need moar coars, just better software

Its like the desktop market is waiting for the other aspect to catch up -like displays, batteries, materials, software etc.

 

[fffblackmage]

I waited for Haswell because I wanted the latest and greatest. Turns out it's probably not really worth waiting for. Yay me.

Maybe I'll just get SB/IB used instead....

 

[Hulk]

The market drives the industry. When computers were CPU limited for the majority of users that is where Intel/Amd put their focus.

Now for mainstream users most modern mid-level CPU's are good enough. Companies are in business to make money. It's really that simple.

As for Moore's law. It is a reflection on how the industry has been growing and a prediction based on that growth. The industry does not try and "reach" Moore's law. As I wrote above they are in it to make money.

Blame the CPU manufacturers for producing parts that are so good there isn't a huge demand for faster parts.

Or perhaps software developers for not creating apps that are really compute intensive and everybody simply HAS to have them.

 

[pcunite]

I want "instant" computing ... then it will be good enough for me. With my i5-3570K and Sata III drive it is close ... still a bit more would be nice.

 

[Arkaign]

Ugh. Tell me about it. You could take an i7 920, which was released in Q4 2008, O/C it a little, pop an SSD with it and 8GB of ram, and it'd be FASTER than 99.8% of all new systems shipping in 2013. Need USB 3.0? $15 PCI Express card, boom.

Sucks to see performance stalled. We could definitely still use bumps in CPU performance, we're on the verge of 4K encoding, and new console ports from much more powerful consoles than the ancient 360/PS3. I think as much as anything it's from a lack of competition. If Bulldozer had turned out to be amazing, I think we'd actually have seen stock 4.5Ghz-5Ghz+ CPUs from Intel now, and/or consumer-level 6/8 core chips. But alas, BD was a disappointment, so Intel has basically sat on their hands in terms of performance.

Don't get me wrong, the improvements in terms of mobile and iGPU are everything we would want in such areas. Remember AMD64 and P4 laptops? Huge, battery-sucking monsters? Well we're getting dramatically better performance and efficiency in laptops now, which is great. I just want the desktop bar pushed a bit as well.

 

[monstercameron]

If you guys want instant computing go use puppy Linux...but from those wishes more/faster ram and caching would serve better than a faster processor...

 

[lopri]

My 2500K @4.80 GHz is alive and well - though I spend more time on my 1045T @3.90 GHz. Each system is stocked up with 16 GB of DDR3-1600.

It's been (over) two years and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. You guys must have been quite busy around here. ^^ I wonder if my 2500K and 1045T will be the last CPU purchases of mine. I think there is a good chance that'll be the case.

Oh, the memories..

 

[lopri]

I want "instant" computing ... then it will be good enough for me. With my i5-3570K and Sata III drive it is close ... still a bit more would be nice.

What do you mean by "instant" computing? Anything/everything you click showing you the result the moment you lift your finger, regardless of complexity of whatever is that you're doing?

I suppose that'd be nice. (I suggest you disconnect from the Internet to boost the performance in pursuit of "instant" computing) Though in my case I can't deny that I am the bottleneck of my daily computing in 90%+ of the tasks.

 

[Eeqmcsq]

That's because processing power has risen way beyond the needs of the general consumer. Or another way to look at it, the processing power needs of the general consumer hasn't changed much in recent years.

So if you're a business, what's the point of spending more money on processing power that the general consumer isn't going to use? Answer: none, so let's keep the money, spend it on something else, thus "good enough" computing.

Plus what Ventanni said above.

Not that I don't feel the same. I've been hoping for a $100 12-core CPU from AMD by now, but it isn't happening any time soon.

 

[Homeles]

Isn't the invention of the Atom and the Brazos CPUs, basically the big industry players thumbing their nose up at Moore's law?

Only if you go out of your way to pretend that the desktop market is the only one that matters.

CPUs always got faster/better/cheaper, until Atom hit the scene, then it stagnated in terms of design, power-consumption, and performance for so long. (Soon to be remedied by their new 22nm OoO design.)

This statement blatantly disregards ARM. Why is lower power and heat such a bad thing? I see the fact that we're able to cram such amazing computing power in such tiny spaces to be a truly incredible feat. Should we start going back to mainframe computers?

Also, Atom's performance stagnated because they did not see the tablet and smartphone revolution coming. Intel made a very grave mistake there -- what you're seeing with Haswell focusing on power, rather than performance, is their attempt to reconcile for that error.

Anyways, I don't have a clear picture of where I'm going with this thread, other than I was just browsing Desktop PCs at Newegg, and the cheapest new one is an Acer "Veriton" Nettop, with Linux, and get this, 2GB of RAM! Only 2GB. What are they thinking???

Is there any particular reason why someone should be disallowed from manufacturing or purchasing such a computer? Also, is Linux not a more lightweight OS, where 2GB of memory is not as big of deal, or even a problem at all?

It's companies that cripple their pre-made PCs, that are still being sold today, that affect how application developers write their code. Who wants to take the plunge and take advantage of 8GB of RAM on the desktop, when it could make the application run faster, if the application also has to run on their anemically-supplied PCs with only 2GB of RAM.

Generally the kind of applications that actually do require some muscle are coded in a manner that reflects that. Also, not everybody has infinite money. Producing more optimized code takes more time, and time is money.

I'm sure most of you well know the story of the Intel Netbook (TM). How MS and Intel conspired to cripple the specs of these "Netbooks", so as to not undercut the demand and pricing for regular laptops. But crippling innovation in that sector pretty massively.

I've never heard of that conspiracy before. I know Netbooks were bad, but nowhere have I seen anything about Microsoft and Intel conspiring to do such a thing.

But even if they were -- so what? The argument that you are making suggests that these kind of low cost computers shouldn't be available at all. Why is choice a bad thing?

Who knows, if MS/Intel hadn't crippled Netbooks, perhaps the flood of Android/ARM tablets wouldn't have happened, because we all would have been using NON-crippled updated "Netbooks" instead.

Why in the world would that have happened? Tablets are such a totally different concept.

I own an Acer Aspire One 722 "Netbook" (but not Netbook (TM)), with a C-60, 4GB of RAM, 1366x768, and I threw in a 120GB SSD. It's actually quite decent to use for web browsing, unlike those Atom 1.6Ghz single-core POS Netbook(TM)s, with their 1GB of RAM and 1024x600 screens.

And guess what? It cost more than an Atom-powered netbook. What's your point?

People bought those $200 craptops. There was a demand for them -- stop pretending like there wasn't.

Who in the world would have ever thought such a low-res screen was a good idea? Especially since Windows ever since quite a while has basically required a x768 screen.

Everybody? I don't understand why the concept of "low cost" is so foreign to you.

We still live in a world where low resolutions screens are the norm.

So my argument is this, "good enough" computing has set the industry, or at least, Intel and Microsoft, back quite a bit. People aren't demanding performance in their PCs anymore. Thus less high-end R&D, which always used to trickle-down to mainstream computing.

It quite seems like your argument is "if you can't shell out enough money for a high end rig, then you shouldn't be buying a computer at all." You showing blatant disregard for cost. Your argument is nothing interesting. You are simply pandering to the "rah-rah high end desktop" circlejerk.

We can see that with Haswell, it doesn't clock any higher than IB so far, instead, it is supposedly more power-efficient, at the base/stock clocks it was designed for.

Stock clocks aren't any higher, but if you're talking about overclocking, your statement is rather contradictory to the data I've seen. You also need to understand that even if Intel wasn't focusing on power efficiency, there aren't going to be notable clock speed gains on the same process. Leakage power also increases exponentially as transistors geometries shrink. Doubling clock speed every year is not happening just because Intel stopped caring about performance -- it stopped because atomic physics reared its ugly head.

We can also see it, in a lack of 8-core consumer offerings from Intel. Not even a 6-core yet. 4-core was so 2006.

And what would your average consumer do with an 8 core CPU?

This isn't even a question of "but more devs would code for it!" Why don't you understand that to the vast, vast majority of people, the computing power of today's processors really are "good enough?" You are acting as if there is always room to improve things -- this is not the case. Computers have strict limits. You can't make serial code run more efficiently on a multi core processor, but your argument essentially runs on the assumption that we can always make use of more computing power in every scenario ever.

Do you not think that having a THz processor in your cellphone would not be massive overkill? Why is the concept of "good enough" so foreign to you?

Are you unsatisfied that an addition operation on a processor takes mere nanoseconds? At what point would you be happy? When it takes picoseconds? Femtoseconds?

It's great that you want more. Please understand that the universe does not revolve around you. Physics has hard limits, and that we face diminishing returns as we approach those limits. The global economy makes it unfeasible to give every child in Africa an i7, quad SLI gaming rig. And as time goes on, R&D costs rise. As companies face tougher and tougher financial hurdles, progress is going to stagnate.

We could all probably be running 10nm processors right now -- the physical challenges are likely solved. Quad and penta patterning is expensive, though, and we don't live in a world where people do things out of the kindness of their heart. The world revolves around money, and it sounds like your problem is with capitalism, rather than with the idea that things are "good enough." It's this desire for profit that is at the core of the "good enough" philosophy.

 

[NTMBK]

If you're going to browse the internet and listen to music, good enough is all you need. I do just that on my C60 netbook, and it's a very nice experience. The only issue is video without hardware/GPU acceleration (DAMN YOU NETFLIX) and the crappy low res screen this thing is hobbled with. If they stretched the display all the way out to the edge instead of giving is a big fat bezel, they could comfortably fit a 720p screen in this thing.

 

[Jeff7181]

That's because processing power has risen way beyond the needs of the general consumer. Or another way to look at it, the processing power needs of the general consumer hasn't changed much in recent years.

So if you're a business, what's the point of spending more money on processing power that the general consumer isn't going to use? Answer: none, so let's keep the money, spend it on something else, thus "good enough" computing.

Plus what Ventanni said above.

Not that I don't feel the same. I've been hoping for a $100 12-core CPU from AMD by now, but it isn't happening any time soon.

This. There's so much excess processing power as a result of the gaming and multi-media segments and with the help of smart phones and tablets, the industry is finally learning that we don't need 3+ GHz quad core CPU's to browse the web and play games on social media sites.

 

[VirtualLarry]

the industry is finally learning that we don't need 3+ GHz quad core CPU's to browse the web and play games on social media sites.

No, but it sure helps. One of my friend's has a machine for his woman, and it has an E5200 in it, 2GB of RAM (maybe 1GB), and Windows 7. He claims it bogs down massively with Facebook games (Farmville, etc.).

Ideally, he would upgrade her to at least an i3 and 16GB of DDR3, along with a nice SATA6G 120GB SSD. Budget wise, no so likely.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Is there any particular reason why someone should be disallowed from manufacturing or purchasing such a computer? Also, is Linux not a more lightweight OS, where 2GB of memory is not as big of deal, or even a problem at all?

There's a reason a pack of gum has five sticks in it, not two. At some point, it becomes pointless to cost-cut so very much that you end up with an unusable product.

I have nothing against the freedom of companies to mfg these systems, nor the freedom of buyers to purchase said systems, but I would hope that the market would make such systems unsellable, and thus obsolete.

I've never heard of that conspiracy before. I know Netbooks were bad, but nowhere have I seen anything about Microsoft and Intel conspiring to do such a thing.

But even if they were -- so what? The argument that you are making suggests that these kind of low cost computers shouldn't be available at all. Why is choice a bad thing?

I'm saying, because Intel/MS made a standard configuration, that was not to be exceeded as far as specifications go, otherwise you couldn't call it a Netbook, and you couldn't qualify for a low-cost starter version of Windows, that it really retarded innovation in that sector. Tech companies should be FOR innovation, not AGAINST.

And guess what? It cost more than an Atom-powered netbook. What's your point?
People bought those $200 craptops. There was a demand for them -- stop pretending like there wasn't.

Mine only cost me a smidgen more than $200, for way more value.

Everybody? I don't understand why the concept of "low cost" is so foreign to you.

We still live in a world where low resolutions screens are the norm.

Well, someone should have informed Microsoft of that fact, I guess. Because they seem to think differently, Windows 8 will only install on a rig with a minimum res of 1024x768. Thus, no Windows 8 upgrade for those Netbooks. They were a stagnant technology purchase, intentionally retarded by Intel and MS.

It quite seems like your argument is "if you can't shell out enough money for a high end rig, then you shouldn't be buying a computer at all." You showing blatant disregard for cost. Your argument is nothing interesting. You are simply pandering to the "rah-rah high end desktop" circlejerk.

When cost-cutting (to the bone) results in LESS VALUE for the consumer, then I'm concerned.

The world revolves around money, and it sounds like your problem is with capitalism, rather than with the idea that things are "good enough." It's this desire for profit that is at the core of the "good enough" philosophy.

When quasi-monopolists throw their collective weight around the industry to RETARD INNOVATION, I don't see that as a positive thing about capitalism.

I am otherwise pro-capitalism, but not pro-monopoly. I do believe in regulation.

And heck, if we can have a minimum wage, we can have a minimum amount of RAM specification, can't we?

 

[Jeff7181]

No, but it sure helps. One of my friend's has a machine for his woman, and it has an E5200 in it, 2GB of RAM (maybe 1GB), and Windows 7. He claims it bogs down massively with Facebook games (Farmville, etc.).

Ideally, he would upgrade her to at least an i3 and 16GB of DDR3, along with a nice SATA6G 120GB SSD. Budget wise, no so likely.

I have an E5200 in my HTPC with a GT520 video card and it will run Farmville, Candy Crush, even Minecraft as well as my desktop PC with a Q9550 and 1 GB 6870. GPU is most likely her problem, not the CPU.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I have an E5200 in my HTPC with a GT520 video card and it will run Farmville, Candy Crush, even Minecraft as well as my desktop PC with a Q9550 and 1 GB 6870. GPU is most likely her problem, not the CPU.

I think the GPU is an X1300. Not super-powerful, but I didn't expect that Farmville needed a powerful GPU. Perhaps I should talk to my friend about an upgrade.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think the GPU is an X1300. Not super-powerful, but I didn't expect that Farmville needed a powerful GPU. Perhaps I should talk to my friend about an upgrade.

Don't get me wrong... I'd much rather have a powerful enough computer that I'd never have to wait for anything to happen. (someone called it "instant computing" earlier) However, I think people are accustomed to waiting for their computer to do things for various reasons, and more often than not, the disk or network access is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Though in my case I can't deny that I am the bottleneck of my daily computing in 90%+ of the tasks.

You're not the only one

What do you mean by "instant" computing? Anything/everything you click showing you the result the moment you lift your finger, regardless of complexity of whatever is that you're doing?

Maybe he's talking about Desktop Instant Computing instead? Even with the SSD, it's still lagging compared to the latest smartphones

 

[Jeff7181]

VMs on high end hardware are as close to "instant computing" as I've seen. 1U servers running ESXi with 192 GB of RAM, 24 physical CPU cores and 8 Gbps fibre channel interfaces connecting them to the volumes on a SAN backed by 60+ 15k SAS spindles.

Base Server 2008 R2 builds boot in under 10 seconds. Exchange and SQL servers boot in less than a minute.

The only way to get faster than that would be to add spindles to the aggregate on the SAN, switch from 15k SAS to SSD on the SAN, or create a RAM drive on the server and install the OS to it.

 

[mkmitch]

I was around using the first desktops that IBM put out into the market place. What we have now is amazing in comparison, but for the vast majority computers are microwave ovens.

 

[biostud]

Battery time and consololitis. Hopefully the PS4 and xbox one will drive a demand for faster CPU's. Personally I've decided to skip Haswell even though i run an old i5-750, since I still haven't found a game that I can't play. I really have the upgrade itch, but I simply can't justify it atm.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Look at this way. Does the average office worker really need some pc with 8 gigs of ram and a high spec i5 when a low spec i3 with 4 gigs of ram has the same real world performance?

My work still actually buys i5's and 8 gigs of ram but it's totally wasted on 95% of the staff who only do Word/Excel/Powerpoint and internet browsing. They could easily save money and drop to an i3 and 4 gigs of ram which will last for years.