this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
133 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

62153 readers
4488 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] realitista@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

It may have to do with spending more of the die on NPU and GPU features? Some of these new integrated processors have massive GPU cores on them.

[–] gex@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It could just be noisy data, it's comparing 365 days of 2024 with ~40 days of 2025

From their website:

The first few days or weeks of a new year are less accurate compared to the end of a year.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 57 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I wonder if this has anything to do with Intel's big snafu with gen 13/14 processors. If the solution was to push a microcode update cuts the voltage to the CPUs, it's basically a "stealth" nerf. Their spin doctors have been working overtime to frame this as erroneously high voltages that were being "fixed".

I'd really like to see this graph divided between Intel and AMD.

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i used to put orange stealth nefs up my nose as a child

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Did that speed things up for you?

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

no, and it cut down on the airflow to my processor

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 days ago

How do we spin this as an upgrade?

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 2 days ago

Did it stop coolant leak though?

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How can this even be possible? A drop in CPU performance on average?

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It’s not really the decrease that’s the news here because that decrease is within a margin of error due to other factors. What’s the real news is that the graph has been flat for two consecutive years which is mind boggling!*

  • I rarely use exclamation marks, sorry about that.
[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’ve been caught, abort mission!

[–] UnbrokenTaco@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

I don't see any exclamation marks here, just the Metal Gear alert sound.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyhow, you're right something is not going great. Although I upgraded to a great Threadripper platform now and we do have great AMD laptop processors. It could have multiple causes:

  • Doing below 4nm, 3nm, and 2 nm will give more and more issues, we are basically hitting a wall. Since quantum effects are increasingly becoming an issue at these small scales. Especially with high NA.
  • Monopoly of AMD in the CPU market, Intel is lacking behind. On the long term this could mean less innovation.
  • Inflation; due to costs rising, people are less willing to invest that much money on their (new) computers and hardware. Since the article refers to "average results of all Windows PC tests across the globe every two weeks". It could be as simple as people having less purging power to all buy new chips. And most people are just "fine" with using 5, 10 or even 15 year old hardware as their daily driver.

Disclaimer: I'm working in the Lithography sector at ASML.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Inflation; due to costs rising, people are less willing to invest that much money on their (new) computers and hardware. Since the article refers to "average results of all Windows PC tests across the globe every two weeks". It could be as simple as people having less purging power to all buy new chips. And most people are just "fine" with using 5, 10 or even 15 year old hardware as their daily driver.

I refuse to buy hardware until my current shit breaks from usage.... These parasites done fucked around. I am done playing these stupid games. My shit can last through 2030 easily.

I used to be a hardware whore... but no more.

Denying these parasites profit as much as I can in every market in participate in!

Always start your search with used ;)

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 days ago

I actually just recently upgraded to new hardware, but you're right I myself (as a programmer) was actually using not long ago 15 year old PC. Well the motherboard, case and PSU was 15 years old. I upgraded the GPU along the way, twice in total. And I added more ram. And 2 years ago I upgraded to the CPU for 10 euros/dollars using some used server Xeon processor that was compatible with my PLGA1366 socket.

So actually depending on your needs and small upgrades, you can use old hardware for years. And yes I was still playing games on this 15 year old desktop PC. I just recently upgraded like I said, because mainly I was limited to only SATA 2 and USB 2.0 connectors, so .. that. And yes my CPU became the bottleneck for my GPU as well. And I was not able to use NVMe drives of course or anything modern to that regard.

EDIT: And my fuses always tripped when I switched on the old computer. Awh well, after 15 years it was time to upgrade.

[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

Peak CPU?!? Hoping for some kind of graphene terahertz breakthrough.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why is the graph not logarithmic? Urgh

[–] source_of_truth@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Because if it was logarithmic, it would look almost horizontal.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What? No. Instead we would be able to see steady increases of say 10 % per year as a straight line instead of this, where it appears to be ever larger increases and the first ones essentially invisible.

[–] source_of_truth@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My bad I was only looking at the thumbnail which was cropped and only showed the last few years.