Intel Talks About Future Technologies for Processors

Damnit, enough with the power saving! Power saving has never done anything quicker! I'd much rather have 15.8v 9001ghz 520 core processors than another round of slightly lower wattage minor speed bumps!

You can make it more efficient later. I can just run things 503334560 times faster and switch the computer off when I want power saving, it uses 0w.

Keeping my fingers crossed for Haswell...

DeathPrincess said:

Damnit, enough with the power saving! Power saving has never done anything quicker! I'd much rather have 15.8v 9001ghz 520 core processors than another round of slightly lower wattage minor speed bumps!

You can make it more efficient later. I can just run things 503334560 times faster and switch the computer off when I want power saving, it uses 0w.

Click to expand...

They are afraid of how ARMs are perceived. Both for small battery powered devices and people wanting to be greener than snot.

still no talk from them on graphene ? Samsung already has a 300 ghz chip...

DeathPrincess said:

Damnit, enough with the power saving! Power saving has never done anything quicker! I'd much rather have 15.8v 9001ghz 520 core processors than another round of slightly lower wattage minor speed bumps!

You can make it more efficient later. I can just run things 503334560 times faster and switch the computer off when I want power saving, it uses 0w.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think the implications of lower power are less heat, and therefore more complex designs with higher clocks.

Maybe not, but that could be the case here.

DeathPrincess said:

Damnit, enough with the power saving! Power saving has never done anything quicker! I'd much rather have 15.8v 9001ghz 520 core processors than another round of slightly lower wattage minor speed bumps!

You can make it more efficient later. I can just run things 503334560 times faster and switch the computer off when I want power saving, it uses 0w.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I like the split off idea in another thread. One division for mobile and one for raw guts. Give me MOAR cores damnit.

Nobody want's to spend $4600 for a non-overclockable dual xeon rig. Give me 32 ivy cores on one chip, I don't care how big it is or how much power it uses.

Intel usually does have two processes that they implement -- one low power and one high-clock.

Why they haven't scaled the frequency more.... ? I think that's a complicated question.

You have to remember that smaller transistors could mean faster frequency... except you have to consider power dissipation, and take this with a grain of salt I'm not an expert in processor architecture.

Each generation, the same # of transistors fit into an area say ~25% smaller. So, If you can reduce the power used by those transistors by only say 15%, your power density actually increases. Power reduction comes partly by reducing voltage and that can be limited by capacitance... so it's complicated.

In my understanding, it's this tradeoff between reducing area, reducing power dissipation, and increasing frequency that has led us to multi-core land with turbo boost etc.

Also you have to look beyond Ghz at the IPC increases with each architecture.

i don't no squat about CPUs and so forth but what i always imagined would be the next step is a (yet to exist) hardware component splitting the computing load between multiple cores, without software assistance.

Mr.Cheap said:

i don't no squat about CPUs and so forth but what i always imagined would be the next step is a (yet to exist) hardware component splitting the computing load between multiple cores, without software assistance.

Click to expand...

you imagined right because all the modern stuff is already optimized in 10,000 ways to execute on that concept. they've got this piece sharing with that piece and this and that and the other thing oh boyo its really something