An average PC is
>1080p
>~2.5-3 GHz
>4-6 cores
>16Gb RAM
It has been like this for at least last 7 years and it's not like it's going drastically change in the following 10 years with all the shortages and inflated prices.
Has Moore's Law failed?
Did we reach technological endgame?
I am pretty sure most normalfags are running 8gigs still
UHD is becoming a thing.
If by normal you mean a web browsing PC, yes. It adds to the fact that those PCs are getting older and older as normies manage their normie business with smartphones. Every time I mention something computer related someone replies they haven't used a PC in ages.
Although some still stick to PCs because our local ooga booga language has long compound words and is highly agglutinative so the smarphone keyboard thing rarely offers the exact word you are looking for. Phoneposting in that language is a pain.
Moore sat in an accelerating car. Cars don't reach light speed.
Singularity sisters are too busy moving goalposts to transcend.
market saturation for 90% of PC workloads has happened, the average windows or mac PC has the same specs as a contemporary smartphone not by coincidence
It's not about workloads.
Phone performance has stagnated as well.
Multicore was the first cope, then ludicrously large cache memories, then differentiated cores. We're constantly trying to point the car in a direction where we can floor the accelerator, but there are new walls everywhere. Eventually we will know the shape of the garage, and there is no exit.
it stagnated because phones are all fast as fuck now, if you don't agree with that then you were probably born after 9/11 and never used a single core computer in your life
double posting but like really, I want to know what you're trying to do with your phone that makes you think it doesn't have enough performance?
STOP.
COPING.
The topic is Moore's law and how it's dead.
I was born in 1979 and I've lived through the era when Moore was right. The first real sign of stagnation was in the mid 00's when CPU manufacturers failed to scale beyond 3-4GHz and the entire industry panicked and decided to go after multiple cores instead.
Before that point, we saw orders of magnitude performance improvements steadily.
No longer, and the kids don't remember the reality of it.
moores law doesn't technically have anything to do with clock speed, its how many physical transistors you can fit into a chip and that has more of a correlation with adding moar cores than clock speed
OPs point is that few of the secondary effects correlate anymore, even if the density doubles as predicted - which it also doesn't, right?
Furthermore this means that nobody will bupload their brains and have wasted entire lifetimes praising Kurzweil the sci-fi israelite.
moores law brought cheap RAM and SSD's to the table in the last 10 years though
Not Moore's law. That's just older established tech processes becoming more refined and cheaper, and other innovations. In itself it has little to do with the leading edge of transistor density.
Either way it's not Moore's law if we don't see steady exponential improvements.
We are definitely on a linear track, at best, these days and it's not very steep.
I like that metaphor.
it's a good sweet spot for 95% of people
It's never been consumer driven, copelord. Users will use what is offered. They're no longer being offered significant upgrades.
users can buy 4K screens, can they not?
>pretends it's about resolution and not performance
the advances in PC's recently have been in GPU's and the adoption of SSD's
Dude no way the average pc was a quad core 7 years ago
I have a low end quad core Athlon 5350 shit APU from 2014. I have a low end quad core Ryzen 2400GE from 2018. I have a stack of quad core laptops from 2011 onwards.
I could dig up my row of quad core cell phone corpses but it's too much work.
My 6600k begs to differ, young one
I'm almost positive it was. That was the year I graduated from uni and I used a budget laptop that was quad core during school.
Mid-range laptops had two cores 15 years ago.
Obviously some older stuff was still running, but the avg new one was probably 4 core 7 years ago.
Around 13 years ago the best bang for your buck for midrange machines were "we fucked up, so here's a 3 core" cpus. My shitty netbook atom from 10 years ago is 4 core.
Umm sweaty
>Has Moore's Law failed?
Yes. It met the ultimate endboss - physics. There are no batteries that can handle that power, and even if they were there are no people who would hold a rapidly heating potential bomb in their hands.
Xi will save us ʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ
>mfw just """"""upgraded"""""" from i7 3770k to r5 7600
there is a limit of what you can do with silicone chip without increasing its volume. for more of your obvious retardation ask israelitegle.
>16Gb RAM
Most normalfags still have 8GB RAM, especially Macfags.
israelitetel lied to us
>10GHz
>It's just 4 cores running at 2.5 GHz
There are no shortages of chips, there are shortages of money due to the n****rs at the top stealing it
There's a lot more to performance than frequency, core count, and total vram. Such a generalized average isn't very useful as PCs have become more accessible than automobiles and refrigerators. No one bemoans the stagnation of those devices for the general market. Why does it matter that a device used for note taking and checking social media isn't on bleeding edge hardware?
If you told a person that their next MacBook and iPhone would have processors and graphics cards twice as fast as their current one, they'd say
>Oh, that's cool
If you told them it would cost 30% more, they'd say
>Oh, that's not worth it