Stories with Tag PC Components

• The first yearly drop in average CPU performance in its 20 years of benchmarks

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-11 20:00:13

  Verbose tl;dr

  For the first time in two decades, PassMark's CPU benchmark data reveals a year-over-year decline in average CPU performance. While single-threaded performance continued to climb slightly, multi-threaded performance dropped significantly, leading to the overall decrease. This is attributed to a shift in the market away from high-core-count CPUs aimed at enthusiasts and servers, towards more mainstream and power-efficient processors, often with fewer cores. Additionally, while new architectures are being introduced, they haven't yet achieved widespread adoption to offset this trend.

  A recent report by Tom's Hardware, covering data from PassMark Software's CPU benchmark database, reveals a noteworthy trend: for the first time in two decades of meticulously collected data, the average CPU performance has experienced a year-over-year decline. This shift marks a departure from the consistent performance gains observed historically, prompting speculation about the underlying causes and potential implications for the future of computing.

  The decline, while modest at approximately 0.47% between Q2 2023 and Q2 2024, is statistically significant considering the long-term trend. PassMark, known for its extensive CPU benchmarking database encompassing various manufacturers and architectures, provides a valuable longitudinal perspective on processor evolution. Their data, compiled from user-submitted benchmark results, offers a broad view of real-world CPU performance across a diverse range of systems.

  Several factors are hypothesized to contribute to this unprecedented dip in average performance. The article suggests that the current market landscape, characterized by a mature x86 architecture and potentially diminishing returns from architectural refinements, might be playing a role. Furthermore, the ongoing transition to hybrid architectures, combining performance and efficiency cores, adds complexity to performance evaluation. While these designs aim to optimize power efficiency and overall system responsiveness, their impact on raw benchmark performance is not always straightforward.

  Additionally, the cyclical nature of technological advancements, interspersed with periods of consolidation and refinement, could be contributing to the observed trend. It is plausible that the industry is currently in a phase where incremental improvements are becoming more challenging to achieve, leading to a temporary plateau in average performance gains. This could be further exacerbated by external factors like supply chain disruptions and economic fluctuations, potentially affecting research and development investments.

  The article emphasizes that this decline in average performance doesn't necessarily signify a stagnation in CPU development. Rather, it might reflect a shift in focus towards other aspects of computing, such as power efficiency, specialized workloads, and heterogeneous computing architectures. The ongoing exploration of novel architectures and manufacturing processes suggests that future performance gains are likely, albeit potentially through different avenues than those seen in the past. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of considering this performance shift in the broader context of evolving computing paradigms and the continuous quest for optimized performance metrics beyond raw processing power.

  • CPU Performance
  • Benchmarks
  • PassMark
  • Yearly Drop
  • Hardware
  • Processors
  • PC Components
  • Technology
  • Computing
  • Moore's Law

  Summary of Comments ( 14 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43017612

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed potential reasons for the reported drop in average CPU performance. Some attributed it to a shift in market focus from single-threaded performance to multi-core designs, impacting PassMark's scoring methodology. Others pointed to the slowdown of Moore's Law and the increasing difficulty of achieving significant performance gains. Several commenters questioned the validity of PassMark as a reliable benchmark, suggesting it doesn't accurately reflect real-world performance or the specific needs of various workloads. A few also mentioned the impact of the pandemic and supply chain issues on CPU development and release schedules. Finally, some users expressed skepticism about the significance of the drop, noting that performance improvements have plateaued in recent years.

  The Hacker News post titled "The first yearly drop in average CPU performance in its 20 years of benchmarks" generated a robust discussion with a variety of perspectives on the observed decline. Several commenters focused on the methodology of the PassMark benchmark, questioning its relevance in representing real-world performance gains. One user pointed out that PassMark heavily weights integer performance, an area where gains have plateaued, while neglecting other crucial areas like single-threaded performance which continues to improve. This sentiment was echoed by others who argued that specialized workloads, like AI and machine learning, see significant performance improvements not captured by PassMark.

  A recurring theme in the comments was the shift in focus from raw clock speed increases to architectural improvements and power efficiency. Commenters suggested that the pursuit of higher clock speeds has reached its practical limit due to thermal constraints and diminishing returns. Instead, manufacturers are prioritizing improvements in areas like instruction-level parallelism, cache efficiency, and core count, which may not translate directly into higher PassMark scores but contribute to overall system performance.

  Several users highlighted the impact of the transition to ARM architecture, particularly Apple's silicon, on the benchmark results. They argued that PassMark's predominantly x86-centric benchmark suite doesn't accurately reflect the performance gains seen in ARM-based systems, potentially skewing the overall average downwards.

  The discussion also touched on the broader implications of this trend, with some commenters speculating about the end of Moore's Law and the future of CPU performance improvements. Some posited that we are entering a period of slower, more incremental gains focused on specialized hardware and software optimizations rather than the dramatic leaps seen in the past. Others remained optimistic, arguing that new technologies like chiplet designs and advanced manufacturing processes will continue to drive performance improvements, even if they are not reflected in traditional benchmarks like PassMark.

  Finally, a few commenters questioned the reliability of PassMark itself, citing potential biases and limitations in its data collection methodology. They emphasized the importance of considering multiple benchmarks and real-world performance evaluations rather than relying solely on a single metric.

• Seagate: 'new' hard drives used for tens of thousands of hours

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-29 13:42:03

  Verbose tl;dr

  German consumers are reporting that Seagate hard drives advertised and sold as new were actually refurbished drives with heavy prior usage. Some drives reportedly logged tens of thousands of power-on hours and possessed SMART data indicating significant wear, including reallocated sectors and high spin-retry counts. This affects several models, including IronWolf and Exos enterprise-grade drives purchased through various retailers. While Seagate has initiated replacements for some affected customers, the extent of the issue and the company's official response remain unclear. Concerns persist regarding the potential for widespread resale of used drives as new, raising questions about Seagate's quality control and refurbishment practices.

  A disconcerting report from Tom's Hardware details allegations from German consumers who claim that Seagate, a prominent manufacturer of hard disk drives (HDDs), has been selling refurbished or previously used hard drives marketed as new. These customers, upon receiving their supposedly pristine storage devices, discovered through S.M.A.R.T. data analysis that the drives had already accumulated extensive operational hours, sometimes totaling tens of thousands. This implies that the drives, far from being factory fresh, had potentially undergone significant prior usage, raising concerns about their remaining lifespan and reliability. The affected customers reportedly purchased these drives through various online retailers, suggesting the issue may be widespread rather than isolated incidents. This practice, if confirmed, represents a potential breach of consumer trust, as customers are paying for new products while receiving hardware with a potentially diminished operational expectancy. The article highlights the importance of checking S.M.A.R.T. data upon receiving a new hard drive to verify its actual usage history. While the specifics of how these used drives ended up being sold as new remain unclear, the article underscores a growing concern regarding the transparency of hardware supply chains and the potential for misrepresentation of product condition. The situation leaves open questions about Seagate's quality control processes and whether this is a localized incident limited to the German market or a more pervasive issue affecting a broader customer base. The implications for Seagate's reputation and customer confidence remain to be seen as the situation unfolds and investigations continue.

  • Seagate
  • Hard Drives
  • HDD
  • Used Hard Drives
  • Refurbished Hard Drives
  • Resold Hard Drives
  • Customer Complaints
  • Hardware
  • PC Components
  • Storage
  • data storage
  • Consumer Electronics
  • Tech News
  • Product Quality
  • Warranty

  Summary of Comments ( 164 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42864788

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters express skepticism and concern over the report of Seagate allegedly selling used hard drives as new in Germany. Several users doubt the veracity of the claims, suggesting the reported drive hours could be a SMART reporting error or a misunderstanding. Others point out the potential for refurbished drives to be sold unknowingly, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between genuinely new and refurbished drives. Some commenters call for more evidence, suggesting analysis of the drive's physical condition or firmware versions. A few users share anecdotes of similar experiences with Seagate drives failing prematurely. The overall sentiment is one of caution towards Seagate, with some users recommending alternative brands.

  The Hacker News post "Seagate: 'new' hard drives used for tens of thousands of hours" has generated a significant discussion with a variety of comments. Many users express skepticism and concern about Seagate's quality control and business practices.

  Several commenters share personal anecdotes of Seagate hard drive failures, reinforcing the negative perception of the brand. Some suggest that Seagate might be repackaging and reselling returned or refurbished drives as new, potentially without adequately disclosing this to consumers. This practice is viewed as deceptive and raises concerns about the true lifespan and reliability of these "new" drives.

  A few commenters propose that the issue might be related to a specific batch or retailer, rather than a widespread problem across all Seagate products. They suggest that the drives in question might have been used for testing or burn-in procedures before being repackaged and sold. However, this explanation is met with skepticism by others, who argue that such extensive usage (tens of thousands of hours) is unusual even for testing purposes.

  Some users discuss the importance of checking SMART data (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) upon receiving a new hard drive. This data can reveal the drive's usage history, including power-on hours and error counts, allowing buyers to identify potentially problematic drives. Several commenters share tools and techniques for accessing and interpreting SMART data.

  A few commenters mention alternative hard drive brands, such as Western Digital, and suggest that consumers consider these options due to the perceived reliability issues with Seagate. However, others point out that all hard drive manufacturers can have occasional failures and that brand loyalty is not always a reliable indicator of quality.

  There is also a discussion about the legal and ethical implications of selling used hard drives as new. Some users argue that this practice constitutes fraud and that consumers should be entitled to refunds or replacements. Others discuss the difficulty of proving that a drive was previously used, especially if the SMART data has been reset or modified.

  Finally, some commenters offer practical advice for mitigating the risk of hard drive failure, such as regularly backing up data and using RAID configurations for redundancy. They emphasize the importance of data security and the potential consequences of relying on a single hard drive for critical information.