I just looked up my laptop's info: 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7 from 2012. So you are telling me 6 years later, I can get a 2.9GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i7 processor for ~$2800. So Moore's law was incorrect?
Historically speaking transistors and performance were coincidentally related: More transistors helped do more things at once, and tinier transistors ran faster than bigger ones.
Now we're at a different inflection point where the transistors aren't shrinking as quickly, but the dies themselves are getting bigger and the chips are growing more complex in terms of 3D structure. There's more transistors in there, but the easy gains in terms of pitch reduction leading to higher clock-speeds are gone.
If we'd been on the same track as before you'd have a ~140GHz CPU. Instead you have a 2.9GHz one because physics is a buzzkill.
Here's an older article discussing the problem from 2012 but the same trend has held: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cp...
Transistor counts continue to climb but power consumption, clock speeds and performance per clock have all hit a wall.
Anyway, yes, this is why a lot of people, myself included, think the new MBPs are not at all worth the price, especially if you have an older one. There is essentially no reason for me to ever upgrade from my late 2013 model unless it completely breaks. I love this computer, it was probably one of the best purchases I've ever made
If we're going to be rational, we can't wave it all off as marketing or shiny toys, we have to accept that if they are consistently selling tons of products at high margins, they are delivering value, and the market is voting for that value with their pocketbooks.
If we say, "Well, their prices are out of whack with their value because we can get the exact same thing from Bob's Motherboards for half the price," then we are wilfully choosing to emphasize the part of their value that their customers don't care about, while ignoring the part of their value that customers care about.