when do you think a cpu will no longer be able to increase speed

S

super_xero

New Member
hey i was wondering since cpu are getting faster faster wouldnt there be a time where you couldnt go faster it wouldnt be possible ect games will become as relestic as they can be cpu could become eventually extreamly fast u click on something it come up you rip a movie it does it in one sec you rip music again one sec when do you think this will happen
 
If we look at the past, we've always thouht that "this is very fast", but then new ones come out and make that one look obsolete. Now in terms of video encoding or w/e, if we put something like a Pentium 6 6.4Ghz with 6MB cache, sure it will encode it extremely fast, but as newer cpu's come out, so do more demanding app's and games. In the near future, we will have Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's, anc they will take a much longer time to encode (and probably more cpu intensive then now).

But i do think that we cant just keep going up and up in clock speed, so i bet that they will move more towards building 2-core, 4-core, and 6-core! cpu's. Thats my opinion.
 
I wonder if the technology Sony used for the Cell processor will be available for PCs in the future or a CPU similar to it. It looks like a really nice peice of hardware and it is extremely small.
I think that CPUs will be able to increase in speed for a long time but not in the same way. We will eventually reach the limits of what a peice of silicon will do and we will ahve to find a new material to make it out of that will withstand more heat and provide a better base for CPUs. Think about it, CPUs have always been made out of silicon, we will eventually have to "evolve" CPUs to a new and better material.

We have already reached the max speed a CPU can browse through your computer, you can't get any faster than instantly after you click, the window comes up. The only heavy tests for CPUs will be when encoding and video games. But even now video games are starting to be less and less CPU intensive and more and more GPU intensive.
 
Last edited:
I dont remember the specifics of what im about to say but I had a class in college in which the professor was mentioning something about like a .01 micron barrier or something like that. Basically, if i remember correctly, it was something to do with not being able to squeeze light or something past that barrier, thus, limiting the amount of transistors.
 
yeah, but who says we need to use, it harldy the smallest thing in the universe.

First lets make a distinction between speed and performance. Which has been covered many time before

As for physical size limits, they only exist in current materials used. There are methods of transporting data at infinate speed with zero mass (think lepton spin). Make cpus in using that technology if you must :)
 
speed of light will eventurally become a limiting factor for the internal design of chips (unless Einstein wrong :P )
 
There is a size barrier for transistors but I don't think it has to do with light. As you probably know a transitor needs 3 peices (PNP, NPN) so in theory the smallest it could be is 3 atoms. A further limitation is how many you need to create the basic gates used. Sooner or later you will hit a size limitation (assuming transistors remain the basis of ICs).
 
speed of light will eventurally become a limiting factor for the internal design of chips (unless Einstein wrong )
Click to expand...
we all ready know that light is not the fastest thing, gravity (and there theorised gravitons) for example is infinate times faster than light,

There is a size barrier for transistors but I don't think it has to do with light. As you probably know a transitor needs 3 peices (PNP, NPN) so in theory the smallest it could be is 3 atoms.
Click to expand...
true, :) but who says you have to stop at an atom. Since we are donning our hypothetical hats, you could use any subatomic particle.
 
apj101 said:
we all ready know that light is not the fastest thing, gravity (and there theorised gravitons) for example is infinate times faster than light,
Click to expand...

how so?

speed of light:299 792 458 m / s
gravity: 3.8 meters/ sec squared approx.

unless your are talking about something differnt fill me in
 
how so?

speed of light:299 792 458 m / s
gravity: 3.8 meters/ sec squared approx.

unless your are talking about something differnt fill me in
Click to expand...

To be honest gravity was only a moderate example, it is known to travel and infinate velocity. BUt there are arguments for an against it that potentially revolve around calls that gravity should itself be another demension. When you consider gravity in these terms its easy to understand how it faster than the speed of light and does disprove special relativity.
Perhaps a better example would be something like lepton spin factor. Each lepton will always spin opposite to its pair. Regardless of distance between them. When separted to opposte ends of the earth, and one pair is spun, the other will counter spin at the same time with zero time lag.
 
donjuan1jr and 34erd:

Instead of posting how confused you are.. read the link I previously posted... its sheds some "light" on what we are talking about..

...and why dont you try looking up lepton spin factor on google? Try expanding your knowledge...
 
i also think that the future of processing is based in parallelism, you can only switch a transistor so fast.
i think the graphics industry proved that a while ago when they started adding several pipelines into their chips
 
ya, and what about the theory of those linked atoms, what ever you do to one, it is duplicated exactley on the other, has any advances been made on those?
haha, wifi from across the universe!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top