10GHz Processors By 2011

I'm still rocking a p4 and it runs damn fine. I've it booting windows in 30 seconds. Haven't touched the system in like 5 years and haven't had a need to upgrade it since. Windows xp on it runs like 3 times as fast as this laptop that my work gave me that is a 1.89 core two duo.
 
vjcsmoke said:
True, but would the single 10 Ghz processor perform calculations faster than the Hexacore 3.33 Ghz processor? Hard to say, but I'd give the edge to the multicore processor, given of course that the program properly took advantage of multi-threading. As long as the computational performance is there, the clock speed is secondary imo.
Click to expand...

Bahamut said:
Maybe not, but a 10 GHz single core ain't gonna crunch video with x264 like a quad/hex core will, ever. That's why people always say <x> GHz of combined processing power... code is moving towards proper multi-threading as time goes by, it's the only way we're ever going to really get things done.

Our brains are the most massively parallel computers ever to exist in this reality; Intel has a long damned way to go, I tell ya... :D
Click to expand...

/ bangs head on wall

never said anything about single vs multicore

/ bangs head on wall
 
badcaps said:
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
Click to expand...

That Maxell guy was me...well, actually along with my friends. They made a big deal about letting people pose in the chair and making fake ads posters to buy.


Then again...how many people really remember Maxell and it's MA series tapes, now dat wuz da-bomb in da day!
 
Destonomos said:
I'm still rocking a p4 and it runs damn fine. I've it booting windows in 30 seconds. Haven't touched the system in like 5 years and haven't had a need to upgrade it since. Windows xp on it runs like 3 times as fast as this laptop that my work gave me that is a 1.89 core two duo.
Click to expand...

Probably because you have a Raptor installed in your desktop, which is far faster still than any 5400 RPM laptop drive. Swap it for an SSD and tell me that P4 is fast still.
 
I remember when that prediction was made. I laughed then and I'm still laughing :) I'm still rockin my Pentium 4 670 in an older rig. I use it as a heater during the Winter months.
 
Will computer chips use extensive die reductions in order to think fast do more without reciprocating reparations to the ill-fated Winchip and VIA CPU divisions..

That's the real question at hand
 
Also, I gotta ask, does anyone think the new revolving-gate superthreading feature will save non-polycore systems? This technology could be applied as early as the latest Socket 370 chipsets like the VIA/266DDR and Intel i815
 
Well, you could increase the base bus frequency that way you could do the following:
200MHz * 13 = 2.6GHz (CPU 200 *20 = 4.0GHz)
400MHz * 7 = 2.8GHz (CPU 400 *20 = 8.0GHz)
600MHz * 5 = 3.0GHz (CPU 600 *17 = 10.2GHz) ;)

Note: The above is in one direction only.
 
To be honest, I stopped worrying. We had 3Ghz P4, now we have 3Ghz i7, clock speed is about as important to me as what the government in some former eastern block country is up to. It's performance that matters and clock-speed is no longer a reliable way to measure. Anyone remember what happened after the 1Ghz barrier was broken (truly, with ram that could actually keep up), well now we have the 3Ghz barrier, I'm sure we will have a 10Ghz barrier sometime after that.

And yes, I understand this is a gross over simplification of it.
 
Doubt it, I've never seen Intel or AMD make a 4Ghz CPU yet, even though we can overclock it. The highest I've seen is a 3.8Ghz P4 and thats it, since then AMD and Intel have been slapping more cores, threads and cache but I guess thats ok since a higher frequency CPU uses more power and heat.
 
Let's give Intel the benefit of the doubt and rather restrict them to a 7-mo. deadline, give them 19 months. So they have until Dec. 31, 2011 to come up w/ a production air-cooled 10 GHz processor. :p
 
LOL @ the following:
ROB'S OPINION
Hopefully, most of you are familiar with Moore's Law, so this doesn't come as a surprise to you. If not, Moore's Law states that the number of transistors in a common microprocessor will double every 18 months. As well, it can be applied to processor speed and many other computing/technology metrics. This law has more or less (no pun intended) held true since the transistor was invented. So, assuming that early 2001 is a time when 1 GHz processors are rampant let's see what we get if we apply Moore's Law:

early 2001: 1 GHz
mid 2002: 2 GHz
early 2004: 4 GHz
mid 2005: 8 GHz
early 2007: 16 GHz
mid 2008: 32 GHz
early 2010: 64 GHz
mid 2011: 128 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. Some will call this crazy, but those that yell the loudest have the shortest memories.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top