I'm not an expert on CPU's and I don't pretend to be one, but it's like we are permanently stuck below 4 GHz stock for the last four or so years. Four years ago I would have thought that 4+GHz would be the norm in the future. We are still suck with 3-point-something as our max stock speeds.
Sure we have dual core and all, but why not both?
Am I missing something? Is clock speed not as important as I thought?
I'm wondering about this, too...
[QUOTE=Master117;19861427]I'm not an expert on CPU's and I don't pretend to be one, but it's like we are permanently stuck below 4 GHz stock for the last four or so years. Four years ago I would have thought that 4+GHz would be the norm in the future. We are still suck with 3-point-something as our max stock speeds.
Sure we have dual core and all, but why not both?
Am I missing something? Is clock speed not as important as I thought?[/QUOTE]
As you go higher in clock, more interference is created on the CPU itself, and it's harder to get a stable clock. You need to raise voltage, that creates heats, and all sorts of other problems.
Notice how clocks went down when we went to Core2Duo, but the actual processor calculation capacity went up?
That's because Intel worked on the actual architecture of the CPU in order to make it more efficient, as opposed to just mindlessly upping clock speed. Dual core also meant that computer speed mattered less than before; if your bottleneck was running two tasks at once, instead of raising the CPU speed so that one of them completes as fast as it can so the other can finish, why not run them both at once?
At any rate, this is what I [i]read[/i] about it, and I'm sure someone in computer science can tear this post apart condescendingly (or nicely detail it, too), but I'm pretty sure I'm almost on target.
Architecture matters a lot more than just clock speeds. A single core off an i7 or an i5 would absolutely wipe the floor with a single core P4.
Besides, think about what 4Ghz really is. AT 4Ghz, your processor can run 4,000,000,000 commands EVERY SECOND (more or less, I know I'm oversimplifying). Performance is steadily increasing, even on single-threaded applications. I don't see why we need processors over 4Ghz.
[editline]12:56PM[/editline]
Damn, gparent basically beat me to it.
[QUOTE=windwakr;19861626]No, it would have 4,000,000,000 clock cycles every second. Not all instructions get completed in one clock cycle. Things like divide can take up to 100 clocks on modern processors, although most instructions only take 1-5.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AesoSpadez;19861500]
Besides, think about what 4Ghz really is. AT 4Ghz, your processor can run 4,000,000,000 commands EVERY SECOND [b](more or less, I know I'm oversimplifying). [/b]
[editline]12:56PM[/editline]
Damn, gparent basically beat me to it.[/QUOTE]
You seem to have missed something.
[QUOTE=AesoSpadez;19861500] I don't see why we need processors over 4Ghz.[/QUOTE]
We don't NEED them at higher than 4.0GHz, but it's certainly nice. I've got my i5 clocked from 2.66 stock to 4.0, and it's great.
[QUOTE=YodaEXE;19861688]We don't NEED them at higher than 4.0GHz, but it's certainly nice. I've got my i5 clocked from 2.66 stock to 4.0, and it's great.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more. I'm running my E6600 at 3.6Ghz, and it's fantastic. The point I was trying to make is that higher clock speeds are only one of many different ways that was can improve performance. F1 restricts certain things from year to year in order to force ingenuity into the cars, rather than just making the engine more powerful. While there were no restrictions (past heat dissipation and power draw) on CPUs, they've more or less done the same lately.
Also, I didn't feel like explaining how an instruction gets split up amongst clocks, because you can't really go in depth until you talk about how the processor works, and therefore how it's made. I was just trying to give a concept of just how fast 4Ghz really is. Besides, that's per core, so the number is at leas that big for quad-core systems.
because we have found we can process more data with 2 cores at 2ghz than one core at 4ghz. Well will break the 4ghz wall soon. I beleieve AMD's Bulldozer are 4.2~3.6 and i9's are 3.5-4.0.
were getting there... [url]http://www.techspot.com/news/37270-AMD-readies-36GHz-Phenom-II-X4-975.html[/url] but why dont you just OC yourself >.>
I read on wikipedia that the pentium 4 was originally supposed to go up to 10ghz, but it never made it past 3.8ghz because of excessive heat.
they're hiding under your bed
Because Intel and AMD aren't oven manufacturers.
Because that's where the P4s were heading and it's the reason they failed compared to the faster, much cooler and more power efficient AMD processors with a lower clock speed.
[QUOTE=Hammertime;19861439]I'm wondering about this, too...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, technology is improving, but where is the "raw speed"?
[QUOTE=Facepunch her;19862710]Yeah, technology is improving, but where is the "raw speed"?[/QUOTE]
in the bios, change a few values and you have your 4ghz, simple eh?
[QUOTE=rampageturke;19862730]in the bios, change a few values and you have your 4ghz, simple eh?[/QUOTE]
Meaning stock freq.
I'm only at 1,7ghz
only because stock coolers suck
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;19861923]because we have found we can process more data with 2 cores at 2ghz than one core at 4ghz. Well will break the 4ghz wall soon. I beleieve AMD's Bulldozer are 4.2~3.6 and i9's are 3.5-4.0.[/QUOTE]
i9s aren't i9s anymore, it's the i7 980X. The xeons came stock @ 2.4, im not sure about the 980X
While I agree with everyone stating architecture is everything, it surprises me as well that clock speeds haven't budged for half a decade. Back in the times of the 8086-80286, clock speeds were jumping almost as fast as transistor counts.
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;19863470]i9s aren't i9s anymore, it's the i7 980X.[/QUOTE]
wait, what? since when?
I wondered this too, Hopefully we'll see 4+ Ghz in the near future.
Once the 32nm tech comes out, I think we'll see much higher stock speeds. 3.6, 3.8, maybe even 4GHz.
"We're looking at a multi-core future"
[QUOTE=Dr Nick;19863642]Once the 32nm tech comes out, I think we'll see much higher stock speeds. 3.6, 3.8, maybe even 4GHz.[/QUOTE]
look at the new i3/i5's.... 32nm
[QUOTE=rampageturke;19863636]wait, what? since when?[/QUOTE]
IIRC the name was leaked around mid-December.
Instead of going for higher clocks which means hotter CPU's, it's evolving towards CPUs with several cores + new architecture is a lot more important than Ghz.
pentium 4 XE was 3.8 GHz,
[editline]08:34PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=rampageturke;19863636]wait, what? since when?[/QUOTE]
since a while.. There is also a 3.07 GHz one
[img]http://i46.tinypic.com/1675d03.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=100600&stc=1&d=1264150488[/img]
[editline]08:35PM[/editline]
edit: big images :saddowns:
[QUOTE=rampageturke;19863688]look at the new i3/i5's.... 32nm[/QUOTE]
Livin' in the past here. I'm still using a Pentium processor.
[QUOTE=gparent;19861486]As you go higher in clock, more interference is created on the CPU itself, and it's harder to get a stable clock. You need to raise voltage, that creates heats, and all sorts of other problems.
Notice how clocks went down when we went to Core2Duo, but the actual processor calculation capacity went up?
That's because Intel worked on the actual architecture of the CPU in order to make it more efficient, as opposed to just mindlessly upping clock speed. Dual core also meant that computer speed mattered less than before; if your bottleneck was running two tasks at once, instead of raising the CPU speed so that one of them completes as fast as it can so the other can finish, why not run them both at once?
At any rate, this is what I [i]read[/i] about it, and I'm sure someone in computer science can tear this post apart condescendingly (or nicely detail it, too), but I'm pretty sure I'm almost on target.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. Rising clock speed is not paying for itself for now. It's more practical to make smarter processors over faster ones, as the 3~GHz speed is more than enough for doing all the counting you need, as long as you can give it enough room and as long as you use the time in the right way.
Contrary to popular belief, clocking speed of these days processors no longer really matters, or only does when distinguishing between two practically same cores at different frequencies.
For example the Pentium 4 D I ran at 3.2GHz was MUCH slower than Q6600 running at 2.6GHz, and not only because it's quad core competing with dual core.
[editline]09:44PM[/editline]
Not advancing in clocking frequency is nothing bad - we are still moving forward at incredible speed when it comes to raw computing power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
