10GHz Processors By 2011

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Intel famously predicted 10GHz processors by 2011, which gives the CPU giant less than seven months to make good on its processor prediction. Think they’ll make it? Thanks to [H] forum member “Wondernerd” for digging up that one. :)

Intel is predicting that its microprocessors will hit 10GHz by the year 2011. In addition, it is currently working on a system bus that is 10 times faster than its upcoming 400 MHz (4*100MHz) Pentium 4 system bus, working at effective speeds of around 4 GHz. This is very interesting indeed. Intel appears to be underestimating progress in 2011 by a full factor of 10. Even by doing that, it's still making headlines with its predictions.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry Steve but i disagree.

There have been posts years ago that in 2010 12GHz processors would exist, but the highest factory clocked doesnt even hit 4 per core.
 
Well, of course, they already have!

Take your Core i7 980x, 3.2GHz, 6 cores.... that's 6 x 3.33GHz worth of hertz, so it must be running at 19.98 GHz.

THAT'S ALMOST TWICE THEIR PREDICTION, RIGHT?!

DUH!

:p
 
jvz555 said:
Sorry Steve but i disagree.

There have been posts years ago that in 2010 12GHz processors would exist, but the highest factory clocked doesnt even hit 4 per core.
Click to expand...

This is an old article, showing how the prediction isn't going to happen, not soon, at least.

Published July 26th 2000. :rolleyes:
 
For some reason, the phrase "10GHz processor" brings to mind the old Maxell Blown-Away-Guy--except he's being set on fire by the massive thermal output from the chip. :D
 
Well if you count that there is now 6-cores running at 3.33ghz, in highly threaded applications that is like one core at 20 GHz.
 
jvz555 said:
Sorry Steve but i disagree.

There have been posts years ago that in 2010 12GHz processors would exist, but the highest factory clocked doesnt even hit 4 per core.
Click to expand...

I think you missed teh sarcasim tag

your like that buzz killington from family guy

what if you think of a hexa core, and add up all the single speed from all the cores...

3.4 x 6 = 20.4 ghz .... not bad :D

If you think about it like that they sorta made it. they said PROCESSOR not CORE so you can call it a win i think.
 
Sikkyu said:
I think you missed teh sarcasim tag

your like that buzz killington from family guy

what if you think of a hexa core, and add up all the single speed from all the cores...

3.4 x 6 = 20.4 ghz .... not bad :D

If you think about it like that they sorta made it. they said PROCESSOR not CORE so you can call it a win i think.
Click to expand...

'case you didnt see i wrote per core. And if what you are saying is the case, why would intel post this if they already made it.
 
What I find more interesting are the comments by the readers way back in 2000. Most comments were that 2010 was going to be all great and stuff for computers, BUT from what I can see, most of it is still the same ol' same 'ol just a little faster.
 
The comments from that article are priceless; Reading peoples predictions from 10 years ago is both fascinating and hilarious. :D

"The point is, within ten years, we won't be using silicon-based computers. They'll be made obsolete by DNA/protein type bio-computers or maybe molecular computers."
 
jvz555 said:
Sorry Steve but i disagree.

There have been posts years ago that in 2010 12GHz processors would exist, but the highest factory clocked doesnt even hit 4 per core.
Click to expand...

Judging by this post and your subsequent responses, jvz555, you're either one of the largest imbeciles this world has to offer or an excellent troll, hopefully the latter.
 
rflcptr said:
You still don't add the clocks. :p
Click to expand...

I think the point was that if you had a highly-threaded application running over 6 cores at 3.2 GHz, the amount of operations completed could be near or equivalent to one core running at ~19 GHz.

Of course you don't add the clock speeds, but obviously in a multi-threaded application a lot more work is going to get done on 6 cores running at 3.2 GHz than one core running at the same speed.
 
rflcptr said:
You still don't add the clocks. :p
Click to expand...
It's about ops per clock cycle, though. If you can perform X ops per clock given a single 3.2 GHz processor, then six of those processors at 3.2 GHz hits a theoretical maximum of X*6 ops per clock cycle. So it's as if you have a 19.2 GHz processor, assuming you can achieve perfectly-distributed threading.

But, yeah, no 10 GHz processor by 2011. Ain't happenin'.
 
It would've happened already if they didn't shift all focous more core MOAR CORES!!!! :(
 
phide said:
It's about ops per clock cycle, though. If you can perform X ops per clock given a single 3.2 GHz processor, then six of those processors at 3.2 GHz hits a theoretical maximum of X*6 ops per clock cycle. So it's as if you have a 19.2 GHz processor, assuming you can achieve perfectly-distributed threading.
Click to expand...
That's assuming much more than just "perfectly-distributed threading."
 
siliconnerd said:
It is more the other way around. NetBurst died because they couldn't ramp up the clock. At 10 GHz, NetBurst still would have been pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

Other way around from what? You're reading more into my post than it warrants. I was ambiguous and vague. You're ascribing order that isn't there.

My statement stands. NetBurst was Intel's plan to hit 10ghz. It failed.
 
Intel has beat the 10 GHz speed barrier, just not on any public CPU's.They have hit it in testing and went way past that mark in the labs...

But, you never know. They might come up with something spectacular in the next year or so. I doubt it, but I'm not writing it off just yet.
 
I have no idea how a funny post turned so serious. Who would've thought a ten year old article predicitng 10GHz processors would get people so riled up! :eek:
 
Steve said:
I have no idea how a funny post turned so serious. Who would've thought a ten year old article predicitng 10GHz processors would get people so riled up! :eek:
Click to expand...

The clock is still ticking on the first post to somehow attribute this to a failing in the current administration.
 
I know this has nothing to do with the topic but the ad on the side of the page has windows 7 running on a mac book pro and I'm disgusted by this.
 
Ah yes intel in the p4 days before they seemed to realize the consequences of heat.
 
I've seen reference to a 6.5 GHz Phenom II X4 by an end-user, and 7 GHz by AMD themselves.

And an 8 GHz Pentium 4.


I just love the first comment, though. "If 10 GHz is the best that Intel can do by 2011, AMD or somebody else is going to eat their lunch."

I do agree with the "980X counts as 20 GHz", though. At the time the article was written, they were both misunderstanding Moore's Law, and not taking into account multiple cores. For what the prediction meant (even if they didn't know it,) we've exceeded it by a factor of 2.

Intel didn't quite hit the front side bus number, though. They used the NetBurst 100 Mhz * 4 as a basis, which is 3.2 GB/s. The fastest QPI is 25.6 GB/s, not quite 10x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top