[turnip1979]

Intel chip performance improvements seem to have slowed down. They add extras like acceleration for 3d prints, USB improvements, etc. But raw horse power seems at a standstill. I wonder if this is because they don't have a fierce competitor anymore or whether they are keeping "high" multicore chips for their Xeon line. A decade ago, people kept harping we'll have hundreds of cpu cores in our desktop systems any day now. That didn't happen. We do have thousands of GPU cores .. so .. go NVidia and AMD! Intel needs to get their act together.

[ajoy39]

It's partially because of the lack of competition and partially because the process technology itself has slowed down. We're starting to run up against the limits of silicon, going from 22nm to 14nm isn't as big of a performance increase as going from, say, 90nm to 45nm was a decade ago.

[agumonkey]

I wonder how power efficient new gen. cpus are compared to their ancestors.

[mtgx]

It's been that way since Ivy Bridge believe it or not. Sandy Bridge was the last one to gain a 30% performance boost over the previous generation. All the rest got around 5%.

[baq]

it's literally quantum physics vs the world at this point so saying 'get their act together' is a bit unfair.

[Narishma]

> We do have thousands of GPU cores

Those are more like ALUs, and very simple ones at that, than cores.

[yAnonymous]

I think at this point getting even further ahead of AMD would only get them into trouble.