Outdated. They stopped labeling the axes or for GPUs they label it some bullshit like "relative performance" so they can claim 16x performance with upscaling and slop-generated frames.
That is such a pet peeve of mine. Charts without labeled axes might as well just be art projects.
never trust a chart you haven't manipulated yourself
Don't trust the ones you've manipulated yourself either: that's just your own bias...
A couple of years ago I saw a thing about how Apple had announced the M3 or M4 chips were something like "16x faster!"
And yeah. They were.
Than the last-gen Intel chips they used. Three or four years before.
It's bullshit all the way down.
The devil's advocate version is that nobody on Apple Silicon needs to upgrade yet so they compare to CPUs people might actually be considering upgrading from.
I still hate how deceptive it is.. And it's completely unnecessary because they've been achieving stellar gains almost every generation.
And those chips were badly throttled. There were videos showing you could get 20% more performance from the Intel MacBook by putting it in a puddle for better cooling.
I remember when people got upset by things like this. I wonder why it's "ok" now.
The people who pointed it out got tired, and most people will come to accept anything that doesn't directly harm them if they're not repeatedly informed why it's bad.
People started replying with "nerd-face-emojo acthually" to make fun of anyone that points this shit out.
I remember all the anti-establishment, anti-sellout, anti-consumerist comics from the 1980's.
Pancreatic cancer did Bill Hicks a huge fucking favor.
The rest of us are poorer for it. Here’s Tom with the weather.
It can in some cases be beneficial to have a windowed graph like that. Most of the time I see one it is just misleading though.
I'd argue it's only useful when you have more than two data points. With only two, it's almost always going to be misleading in some way at a glance.
Moore's Law is struggling against the limits of what's physically possible and the days of massive jumps in performance each generation are long over. It's hard to advertise a new CPU when it's running at nearly the same clock speed models ran at ten years ago and all you've done is thrown more L3 cache at an otherwise 99% unchanged previous model.
Even the number of cores has stagnated, and that was their Hail Mary to keep the performance gains coming. And I bet the Spectre/Meltdown mitigations eroded a large part of those gains too - IIRC existing chips lost ~12% performance after the firmware patches, and new ones had to be redesigned to handle speculative execution in a less efficient (but more secure) way.
Though there has recently been another step forward with transistors being able to get under a nanometer, 0.7 nm from 2 nm to be precise, and the last time a measurement needed to go another level smaller was in 1984 when it went from 1 micrometer to 0.8 micrometers.
That 0.7 nm one marks another jump in power while being significantly more efficient, which is I guess Moore's law living out of spite of not actually being a scientific law.
Also it's funny this is about the 2nd or third time I've seen someone say "Moore's law is dead struggling" since that 0.7 nm process was figured out not that long ago, though I can definitely see the "struggling" part.
Interesting! I'd always heard that the nanometer wars were mostly marketing fluff these past several years and the quoted numbers divorced from reality, but they're claiming genuinely sub-nanometer chips. And 3d chip designs, which is equally impressive. I haven't followed chip tech in a few years, but last I knew heat dissipation was still a huge bottleneck preventing stacked designs.
Though it's a shame they're focusing all that innovation towards the AI sector. Their consumer lines have been stagnant for a while now.
Intel's nanometer-ish numbers are BS. They call their 14nm process "Intel 10", their 10nm process "Intel 7", their 7nm "Intel 4", etc. As far as I know, other companies are more truthful.
I made a chart like this once, it was to encourage my wife durong the start of her weight loss journey
How did 100Mhz increase help her with this?
Millions of humps per second I imagine
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
