What is going on with PC processor development? I have a 5

>>52363489

Economies of scale,

They're are not mass produced any more, if produced at all.

>>52363530
I think you've missed the point of the post. It's not about why a specific processor got more expensive in five years, it's about why a better processor doesn't exist that's cheaper.

You can't just increase the frequency, so they started adding more cores.
Then they went for better power management as the majority of the market is very close to idle all the time.

I still rock a 2400 on my desktop because I don't really need to upgrade.
I might get a new gpu just to toy with cuda, but I don't need it for any current application.

>>52363489
We are simply approaching the limits of current technology. It is getting harder and harder to shrink the die. Transistors are already so small that quantum tunneling is creating problems and at around 5 nm Heisenberg uncertainty rears its ugly head and we won't have any way of guaranteeing a particular transistor state.

My 3470 is still beast. Doesn't hold back my GTX 970 at all

>>52363489
>have an i5 3750k
>kinda cheaped out on the mainboard back when I bought the CPU
>check out the currently available mainboards
>decent stuff is 200$+
Fug

>>52363676
So Moore's law finally broke?

>>52363591
This. They're still cramming more transistors in every year, but we used to see an inherent boost to clock speed as we did that since the signals didn't have to travel as far. Now everything is small enough that it doesn't matter.

We still get smaller every year, which is why there's all the multicore shit and also a big part of why memes like functional programming are coming back. Programming concurrency is a lot easier in FP then it is in Object Oriented Programming. But we're still figuring out (ie arguing about) the best way to handle all these cores from the software side.

>>52363489
Intel has monopoly. AMD is in a very bad shape. Supply and Demand also affects the price. 3750k is still a solid choice even today, you can thank inflation for the $229 price tag.
Also this: >>52363676 and this >>52363737


Embedded processors used to sacrifice a lot of performance for thermal and power consumption. Embedded system developers dealt with it by coding very resource efficient softwares that is often very bare metal. Then the iPhone came, and Google needed something fast, so they duck taped the monstrosity that is Android. Android was a success, but needs a lot of processing power and resources, and that's why we're seeing mobile going through the roof these past few years.

Video card is pushing insane amounts of TFLOPS. Problem is, you're limited by the bandwidth and latency of PCIE, and needing to send draw commands in batches is a massive pain.

>>52363762
>Problem is, you're limited by the bandwidth and latency of PCIE, and needing to send draw commands in batches is a massive pain.

Need a modern version of AGP... Some way of prioritizing video processing requests when the applications call for it.

>>52363726
Not until the number of transistors stop doubling every year, faggot.

>>52363889
>every year
>Doesn't even know what Moore's law says, still feels competent enough to comment on it.

How's that Dunning-Kruger working out for you?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cant-keep-up-moores-law/

>faggot

Go back to /b/, please.

Inter is literally bragging about 10% perf increase per generation.

>>52363489
>ivy bridge is 4 generations old
>still decent
>Intel doesn't make any new ones
>Economies of scale not present
>New i5 3750k's diminish without being replenished
>finding it funny that things with limited supply increase in price
>being retarded enough to be stupid enough to not know that buying a new mobo+processor costs more than simply buying a new processor
>$230 is still cheaper than shelling out $400+ for a similar powerful build
>2016
>being literally retarded about how markets work
Well, you're all jobless neckbeards or clueless shut-in sysadmins for a reason.