When are things going to get faster?

Kolyn_Kryw

Kolyn_Kryw

New Member
Back in the 90s it didn't even take 2 years to double CPU speed (200-400mhz, 400-800mhz)

Intel has been around 3ghz for awhile, AMD has been around 2ghz for awhile.
Things definitely haven't doubled for a long time. In 2 years, Intel better be at 6ghz and AMD better be at 4-5ghz

Anyway, anyone know why these barriers haven't been smashed like they have been the last 20 years?
In 10 years, things better be around 600-800ghz
Though by then, I think new technologies may be giving silicon valley a run for its money.
 
mainly it's the heat issues they have.
intel and amd have been adding more cores lately and been busy improving their cpu's whilst staying at the same speed.

ibm's powercpu's are the only cpu's that have been going up lately instead of adding more cores.
 
Yep, it's heat and power consumption that's been holding the clockspeeds back. Now the focus appears to be on getting more stuff done each clock, and cramming in more and more cores (Efficiency...). While we probably will see clockspeeds increasing as manufacturers develop their fabrication processes, the point where it's starting to get pretty impractical (and possibly expensive) to install effective cooling solutions has been reached (I think so anyways).
 
I would agree with the above, what else can I do, they're absolutely correct. Instead of the mindless increase of clockrate, to hell with the side effects and consequences, Amd and Intel has turned on a different microarchitecture to realize the performance margin.

Remember it's not all about the size.. To paint a better picture imagine the P4's high clockspeed as a Big guy, with some muscle on him but more than his share of fat. Then imagine a C2d lower clockspeed as the smaller Bruce Lee. Yeah.
 
I read somewhere (PC World a few issues ago I believe) that clock speed didn't really change performance as much as how many cores you had. If you have [# of cores] running at [clockspeed] then because you have more than one core running at [said clockspeed] you will get better performance and see things done in a shorter amount of time.
 
voyagerfan99 said:
I read somewhere (PC World a few issues ago I believe) that clock speed didn't really change performance as much as how many cores you had. If you have [# of cores] running at [clockspeed] then because you have more than one core running at [said clockspeed] you will get better performance and see things done in a shorter amount of time.
Click to expand...

To an extant, But I'd mostly disagree with them. Were they testing just boot time and a couple simple apps? Games don't run better with more cores (after 2), neither do most intensive apps. Clockspeed I would champion as the determinant factor is real-world situations.

They might be talking about subsequent performance, close in the future, in which that statement will probably be more than true.. But right now is the reign of efficient architecture, dynamically devised clockspeed being sovereign. [IMO]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top