What does the desktop market need right now?

[Thibaudv]

As we all know, the sales of desktop PCs are declining. What does this market need for it to do well again in your opinion?

 

My opinion:

 

-First of all, STOP with the stupid 5%-10% performance increases per generation (not calling names). We need BIG performance gains that require a bigass tower to cool them.

-Secondly, focus on the people that actually buy desktops: people who want performance at a reasonable price. We don't care about haswell; it uses 10W less herp derp, but SB is still a better overclocker so for people that want the best performance at an affordable price, SB is still one of the best ones out there. I bet if they just lowered the price of SB when IB came out and then lowered it again when haswell came out, SB would have outsold almost anything.

-Thirdly, we need operating systems/programs/ games that actually benefit from more cores and more performance in a huge way.

I'm sure many gamers etc don't mind having a 150W TDP 16core shenanigans processor, if it would perform 3x better

-Lastly: separate the markets: mobile and 'general family desktop users' on one side and the guys that want performance on another side. Then focus on energy consumption for the first market and on performance improvement for the second.

 

Another thought: Advertise PC gaming more. It's affordable (games cost way less which means in the long run, you'll have better graphics + an actual computer for more or less the same price (depending on how much games you buy), but for the big public, it doesn't get the credit it deserves.

[Stav Kats]

Lol the bold letters form Intel. LOL!

Good job mate!

[extremescouter]

This would never happen but it would be awesome if components were so high powered that they needed to be watercooled. 

[Godlygamer23]

Not for people who can't spend lots of money.

[Mac]

So you're suggesting wait the amount of say 3 generations before releasing a new generation?

 

Two reasons why they do this; So they can add more features in on each generation eg. the power consumption is considerably less, also they need to make money, if they did a generation every 3 years they would loose about 40% of sales as a lot of people upgrade to the next gen every year.

 

I know what you're saying, but it's not really possible to get a 50% performance increase every generation.

 

Personally, I think the desktop market needs a variety of colors on components so we can have better color schemes such as a white motherboard. I have a brown motherboard, looks horrible.

[joelthezombie15]

A HUGE jump in performance increase, like jump from 3.5ghz to 5gh.z CPU performance stock, ram speed needs to Jump HUGE and all of this needs to be a some what normal price.

[yankeefeet]

We need more dogs. Call of Duty have taken the lead on this issue, so now hardware manufacturers should follow them and maybe make a paw-shaped motherboard.

[Godlygamer23]

A HUGE jump in performance increase, like jump from 3.5ghz to 5gh.z CPU performance stock, ram speed needs to Jump HUGE and all of this needs to be a some what normal price.

IPC is more important than clock speed. The original FX chips proved that.

[joelthezombie15]

IPC is more important than clock speed. The original FX chips proved that.

I know but i just used that as an example as to how drastic of a jump we would need

[bradscoolio]

It needs people to be interested.

[AroundWayOtherThe]

Simple. More competition to bring new ideas and stuff to the table.

 

Also, it'd be friggin awesome if motherboard manufacturers provided different colour shrouds for heatsinks and stuff, like the Corsair SP/AF fans

[Thibaudv]

So you're suggesting wait the amount of say 3 generations before releasing a new generation?

No, what I'm suggesting is do a new generation every 1,5 years and I do think it's possible to get more performance increase. Look at the mobile market, that almost a 100% increase per year and that's what desktops had a few years back. There is just not enough competition and they need to just separate the mobile and desktop market. Make NUCs and stuff like that for the home desktop users and then focus the actual desktops on people who want more performance, such as video editors, gamers, programmers...

 

Two reasons why they do this; So they can add more features in on each generation eg. the power consumption is considerably less, also they need to make money, if they did a generation every 3 years they would loose about 40% of sales as a lot of people upgrade to the next gen every year.

 

I know what you're saying, but it's not really possible to get a 50% performance increase every generation.

 

Personally, I think the desktop market needs a variety of colors on components so we can have better color schemes such as a white motherboard. I have a brown motherboard, looks horrible.

 

Also what I think this market needs is games that push the need for better graphics. Crysis 3, Far Cry 3 etc should be the standard!

[Mac]

No, what I'm suggesting is do a new generation every 1,5 years and I do think it's possible to get more performance increase. Look at the mobile market, that almost a 100% increase per year and that's what desktops had a few years back. There is just not enough competition and they need to just separate the mobile and desktop market. Make NUCs and stuff like that for the home desktop users and then focus the actual desktops on people who want more performance, such as video editors, gamers, programmers...

 

Two reasons why they do this; So they can add more features in on each generation eg. the power consumption is considerably less, also they need to make money, if they did a generation every 3 years they would loose about 40% of sales as a lot of people upgrade to the next gen every year.

 

I know what you're saying, but it's not really possible to get a 50% performance increase every generation.

 

Personally, I think the desktop market needs a variety of colors on components so we can have better color schemes such as a white motherboard. I have a brown motherboard, looks horrible.

 

Also what I think this market needs is games that push the need for better graphics. Crysis 3, Far Cry 3 etc should be the standard!

Fair point there, but you said the mobile market goes up 100% every year and the same with the desktop market a few years back. I think the reason why it has slowed down is because right now it's not entirely possible, I think it will be a few more years before this will happen again, when more sophisticated technology comes out. Research cost money. 

[Thibaudv]

Fair point there, but you said the mobile market goes up 100% every year and the same with the desktop market a few years back. I think the reason why it has slowed down is because right now it's not entirely possible, I think it will be a few more years before this will happen again, when more sophisticated technology comes out. Research cost money. 

Money that comes from sales which, right now, are declining :/

[deafboy]

Not entirely sure why we need better CPUs when CPUs aren't the thing holding us back...

 

If anything, we need a better global network infrastructure...

 

We need displays to advance more than anything else really.

[ofr057]

i just wish there was a reason why the average user would see a benefit of upgrading a 5 year old system

[everything count to life]

New type of cooling other then water and air.

[EChondo]

Also what I think this market needs is games that push the need for better graphics. Crysis 3, Far Cry 3 etc should be the standard!

Sorry, but I can't take you serious after this.

 

Far Cry 3/Crysis 3 have some of the most ugly, but demanding graphics out there, I don't want all my games with a warm colour that takes up both of my 7870's 100% of the time. Also why are you talking about PC sales declining and then saying stuff about the DIY group and graphics? Intel and AMD don't care about us in the long run and they aren't even the problem for the decline of sales, it's the cheap OEM bastards that create these low end POS systems and sell them for obscene amounts of money and when they lose sales they blame it on "tablets, smart phones, Windows 8" when THEY are the problem.

 

I was talking to my friends the other day(all Mac owners), I asked them why they truly have Macs, they said they much rather have to deal with a crappy OS and pay a fortune for a high BUILD QUALITY system, then have a cheap plastic OEM PC(both desktop and laptop wise).

 

Oh and good luck getting more than 10%-20% performance increases as it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so. Desktop chips are completely different than mobile, so you can't say that "oh, well my laptop has 100% performance increase from each generation(that's a lie btw) but my desktop only gets 10%! Intel/AMD what are you doing!?).

 

This thread doesn't seem like constructive criticism, it just seems like a rant thread,

[Jozi]

MOAR COARS!!!!11!

[colonel_mortis]

We, as members of this forum, and people who know how to use technology, would love to see these massive performance increases, but we only make up a fraction of the market. Unfortunately, the majority of their customers want a PC that is power efficient, can't be used to cook food on, and performs well. It's not a sensible business decision for them to make every PC need massive water cooling loops and loud fans because that would remove most of their market. We'd use it, but most people wouldn't so they'd lose out on most of their money.

[Thibaudv]

Sorry, but I can't take you serious after this.

 

Far Cry 3/Crysis 3 have some of the most ugly, but demanding graphics out there, I don't want all my games with a warm colour that takes up both of my 7870's 100% of the time. Also why are you talking about PC sales declining and then saying stuff about the DIY group and graphics? Intel and AMD don't care about us in the long run and they aren't even the problem for the decline of sales, it's the cheap OEM bastards that create these low end POS systems and sell them for obscene amounts of money and when they lose sales they blame it on "tablets, smart phones, Windows 8" when THEY are the problem.

 

I was talking to my friends the other day(all Mac owners), I asked them why they truly have Macs, they said they much rather have to deal with a crappy OS and pay a fortune for a high BUILD QUALITY system, then have a cheap plastic OEM PC(both desktop and laptop wise).

 

Oh and good luck getting more than 10%-20% performance increases as it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so. Desktop chips are completely different than mobile, so you can't say that "oh, well my laptop has 100% performance increase from each generation(that's a lie btw) but my desktop only gets 10%! Intel/AMD what are you doing!?).

 

This thread doesn't seem like constructive criticism, it just seems like a rant thread,

That's because it IS a rant thread. Those increases are possible (where's the sandy-bridge E 8core?), the problem is just that Intel would have no monetary benefit from bringing processors like that on the market.

And about the graphics, I see your point, but what I meant by those games is that they are some of the only games that push consumers to buy better PCs and they do look way better than games like COD which are selling way more copies.

[Wulfgar]

As long as there are gamers, there will be a need for hardware to drive them. The PC marketing share is undoubtedly smaller, but I believe it's catching up. Consoles are becoming, more than ever before, all-in-one machines, which is what a PC is anyways. Perhaps their paths will converge in the near future and the market share will be more evenly distributed. Of course, there will ALWAYS be the "hobbyists" and "tinkerers" out there like us, pushing the limits of our hardware to extract the highest possible experience.

[EChondo]

That's because it IS a rant thread. Those increases are possible (where's the sandy-bridge E 8core?), the problem is just that Intel would have no monetary benefit from bringing processors like that on the market.

And about the graphics, I see your point, but what I meant by those games is that they are some of the only games that push consumers to buy better PCs and they do look way better than games like COD which are selling way more copies.

I find that CoD has decent graphics for the game it is, but because of what the game is(multiplayer and there's lots of people who buy CoD every year), most of the people who buy Call of Duty don't have great machines, ergo they would need to buy a better PC to play a game, I and I bet they won't like that.

 

Sandy Bridge E eight core? Oh it's right over there with AMD's 16 core FX CPU.

 

Intel doesn't need to make a CPU like that, because the market is so tiny that only 5% would buy it. Now if everyone(and I do mean everyone) goes and buys the Intel 3960x TOMORROW, then Intel would easily be making more CPUs like that, but no one is going to go buy a $1000 CPU let alone an entire market will.

 

It's messed up I know, but there isn't a market(at least not a big one) for high end CPUs like the 3930k(and above). Therefore Intel isn't going to making CPUs like that for the general market and they won't be until everyone goes and buys a new high end CPU(and I am not talking about a regular i7-4770k).

[hrajbharat]

more reliable SSDs..

[Thibaudv]

I find that CoD has decent graphics for the game it is, but because of what the game is(multiplayer and there's lots of people who buy CoD every year), most of the people who buy Call of Duty don't have great machines, ergo they would need to buy a better PC to play a game, I and I bet they won't like that.

 

Sandy Bridge E eight core? Oh it's right over there with AMD's 16 core FX CPU.

 

Intel doesn't need to make a CPU like that, because the market is so tiny that only 5% would buy it. Now if everyone(and I do mean everyone) goes and buys the Intel 3960x TOMORROW, then Intel would easily be making more CPUs like that, but no one is going to go buy a $1000 CPU let alone an entire market will.

 

It's messed up I know, but there isn't a market(at least not a big one) for high end CPUs like the 3930k(and above). Therefore Intel isn't going to making CPUs like that for the general market and they won't be until everyone goes and buys a new high end CPU(and I am not talking about a regular i7-4770k).

Well then maybe we need games to rely more on CPU instead of GPU.

BTW: the SB-E 8Core does exist, I mean all the 6cores are 8cores with 2 cores disabled. Intel just didn't release them because they think no one needs that much power and they would have a TDP of 150W which is apparently too much for consumers (worst excuse ever IMO)

Also I'm not talking 1000dollar CPUs, I'm talking affordable. I think there should be a range from 2 cores without Hyperthreading (for 50dollars) up to 8cores with hyperthreading for about 500dollars. 

 

But yeah I know this is a utopia-vision on the desktop market.

 

I do however wonder what we as a community could do to make them go in the right direction...