The problem is that we are still figuring out our limits with the CPU. As of right now for gaming and general usage of the CPU, we have not seen progression since we started working in multi-threading.
The way I understand what you you are saying I can not agree. Run todays highest end games on the first batch of duals. We have come a long way.
The raw compute power has increased dramatically as well.
What needs to be considered, as I have said before, is the entire package. Just think of some of the arch. changes to the CPU that have not involved compute power. The APU that you have mentioned already, new SIMD instructions, moving many of the NB components to the CPU to lessen the bottlenecking and a few other things.
I see the progression that you have said has not been realized. Killing the FSB is a huge jump for heavy background multi tasking for the GP user who might want to DC. The memory controllers ability to operate faster memory...............
CPU Architects are still trying to find the best combination with the resources they have. In the past year or two, we have seen that increasing cores is done, we have exploited that technique to its max. The next step is exploiting each core to its max, and that is what we are currently doing. Until we find that, than e will move onto other tasks maybe different types of doping of the silicon, or different kinds of transistors, or new memory architectures, or finally going 128bit (which will be sooner than some of you can imagine).
Your argument seems to contractdict itself. You said we are not reaching potential yet you almost sound happy about 128bit.
Not that 128 is bad but to me it just makes for bigger slopier programs with sloppy, generic, coding.
I personally do agree with the theme of your post and it is the software that has to take advantage of the hardware and do it efficently.
Also I was making a case that benches could be revamped with usage models that were more represanative of todays average user. With FB and all of this social garbage and streaming and blah, blah we can not readily say that a CPU is crap because it is just as fast at FB as the rest of the pack.
Yeah gaming benches show this and that but unless I am playing a game where frame rates give a specific advantage then 80FPS or 200FPS makes no diffrence. I want to see tha parts that stress the CPU revealed. I mean who cares if you max at 200FPS and the other guy maxes at 180 when he also bottoms at 60FPS and bottom out at 40FPS and it is consitent across video cards. How well is the CPU is handling heavy BOT AI.
I would also like to see timed tests and real workloads used.