More instructions processed per clock cycle and multiple cores means that clock speed doesn't matter as much as it used to.
This is just like with combustion engines and rpms
a stroker 120cc going at 20.000 rpm is no match for a 900cc going at 6000 rpm
the 900cc will require less intensive cooling and lubrication because of slower but stronger rpms.
think of 4ghz as 20.000 rpms which most engine can't maintain long without braking.
Just becuase the clock speed for the latest CPUs are only 2.XXGHz, it actually performs much faster than its rated clockspeed, due to multicore, and new threading architectures and similar new technologies.
[QUOTE=AesoSpadez;19861500]
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).[/QUOTE]
No, it's called clock cycle per a second; it's not running 4 trillion instructions every second.
There's instructions per a cycle, then number of clock cycles per a second. I believe you should be banned for being so wrong.
[QUOTE=LeYang;19864365]No, it's called clock cycle per a second; it's not running 4 trillion instructions ever second.
There's instructions per a cycle, then number of clock cycles per a second. I believe you should be banned for being so wrong.[/QUOTE]
thats not a very nice thing to say
apologize to him
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;19864105]More instructions processed per clock cycle and multiple cores means that clock speed doesn't matter as much as it used to.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're comparing basically same family or OCing, that's where speed matters.
One more thing - one of the very important factors which influence the real work processor does, and isn't too frequently mentioned, is the size of caches. Cache in processor is extremely fast memory, which the processor uses to compensate it's and RAM's speed, and to store the data it isn't done with. Processor cache to RAM is pretty much the same as RAM is to harddisk.
By increasing cache, processors are getting much faster, even through this parameter is frequently overlooked.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;19864499]One more thing - one of the very important factors which influence the real work processor does, and isn't too frequently mentioned, is the size of caches. Cache in processor is extremely fast memory, which the processor uses to compensate it's and RAM's speed, and to store the data it isn't done with. Processor cache to RAM is pretty much the same as RAM is to harddisk.
By increasing cache, processors are getting much faster, even through this parameter is frequently overlooked.[/QUOTE]
Also it's expensive to increase it, though its to get cache large enough that the processor isn't bottlenecked by it (or overpriced for it's target range).
They could make a processor that ran at 4.0Ghz and sell them publically. The only catch is then they would have to redesign their heatsinks. With that, the heat sinks would be much larger and wouldn't fit into alot of slim cases. Which means that companies like Dell and HP wouldn't purchase the product. It also means that since the processor would be so fast in comparison to other processor that the price would just be so high that most other users wouldn't buy it and it would be more cost effective to buy a slower processor and a new heat sink and just overclock that to 4.0Ghz. That is why!
[QUOTE=Dizzymagoo;19864803]They could make a processor that ran at 4.0Ghz and sell them publically. The only catch is then they would have to redesign their heatsinks. With that, the heat sinks would be much larger and wouldn't fit into alot of slim cases. Which means that companies like Dell and HP wouldn't purchase the product. It also means that since the processor would be so fast in comparison to other processor that the price would just be so high that most other users wouldn't buy it and it would be more cost effective to buy a slower processor and a new heat sink and just overclock that to 4.0Ghz. That is why![/QUOTE]
Aye, Intel isn't rich enough to make procs JUST for gamers/OC enthusiasts/folders/SETI/.
its just how fast everything is moving, it doesnt mean its carrying more or more effectivly
[QUOTE=LeYang;19864425]Unless you're comparing basically same family or OCing, that's where speed matters.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Higher clock speed = more cycles in a shorter amount of time
[QUOTE=Robber;19862589]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]
wat
historically, AMD CPUs have been power hungry and hot. AMD was total shit pretty much mid 2000 - 2008
I remember reading something a few days ago when looking for specs on an AMD CPU I got from a friend. Something along the lines of the clockspeed not being a good way to compare it to a P4, and that if a P4 and an Athlon CPU of the same clockspeed were put side by side, the AMD could knock the pants of the P4.
That's why it's smarter to have a look at the Flops it can do than just the clock.
As said before, clock is not everything.
Anyway, the current way CPUs are build (MOSFET - Metal-Oxide-Field-Effect-Transistors) make them limited to frequency. MOSFETs are anyway not the best choice for high clocks (but easiest to produce on small scale an the amount necessary).
Also: In the past, higher clock-speeds indeed were quite linear to the calculation power. But today, the simultaneous amount of calculations per clock-cycle increase which makes the CPU faster in a different way.
I'm quite sure, judging according to the past 5-years CPU-Clock-stagnation, in 10 years, we won't have 10 GHz CPU for sure. If not, contact me in 2020 and tell me I was wrong.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19865190]wat
historically, AMD CPUs have been power hungry and hot. AMD was total shit pretty much mid 2000 - 2008[/QUOTE]
Intel was getting there asses being handed to them pre-p4.
With pentium 4's they stepped up the game only to have Amd crawl up behind them later and make more efficient processors.
Then x2 v. Core2 war went by fast. core2's sucked x2 were a little better made yet most consumers stuck around with last-gen intels.
Now we have new quad and octowars, and it seems to be that Intel is winning, but Amd still has the efficiency and power at a good price to keep in the game.
It seems that Intel doesn't have to try almost now with there massive budgets. They just keep slapping cores and streamlining the architecture.
Though Amd is leaning more towards super-computing and efficiency while intel goes for power.
I just miss my old P4 Ht @ 3.8ghz. That thing flew until the dual core era came.
Also was a great space heater for the colder months, which aren't really cold here in florida.
But yea that old athlon was hot, but still performed wonders.
[QUOTE=Bonzai11;19865619]Intel was getting there asses being handed to them pre-p4.
With pentium 4's they stepped up the game only to have Amd crawl up behind them later and make more efficient processors.
Then x2 v. Core2 war went by fast. core2's sucked x2 were a little better made yet most consumers stuck around with last-gen intels.[/quote]
The Core2 architecture was alot better than the Athlon, what are you talking about?
[quote]Now we have new quad and octowars, and it seems to be that Intel is winning, but Amd still has the efficiency and power at a good price to keep in the game.
It seems that Intel doesn't have to try almost now with there massive budgets. They just keep slapping cores and streamlining the architecture.
Though Amd is leaning more towards super-computing and efficiency while intel goes for power.[/quote]
Price, yes. Efficiency? Not really. AMD chips still use a little more juice than Intel CPUs and there's still a sizable lead in performance with Intel over AMD.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;19865893]Price, yes. Efficiency? Not really. AMD chips still use a little more juice than Intel CPUs and there's still a sizable lead in performance with Intel over AMD.[/QUOTE]
I just can agree. For my current PC I had to chose between a Intel Core i5-750 (95W power consumption) and an AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (140 W) which are quite similar in performance. Obviously I took the Intel, because my old previous AMD X2 6400 BE made my fan spin up like hell. Now my core i5-750 does not get hotter than 45° C and the fan never spins up. Less power-consumption is really a good thing.
[QUOTE=Bonzai11;19865619]Intel was getting there asses being handed to them pre-p4.
With pentium 4's they stepped up the game only to have Amd crawl up behind them later and make more efficient processors.
Then x2 v. Core2 war went by fast. core2's sucked x2 were a little better made yet most consumers stuck around with last-gen intels.
Now we have new quad and octowars, and it seems to be that Intel is winning, but Amd still has the efficiency and power at a good price to keep in the game.
It seems that Intel doesn't have to try almost now with there massive budgets. They just keep slapping cores and streamlining the architecture.
Though Amd is leaning more towards super-computing and efficiency while intel goes for power.
I just miss my old P4 Ht @ 3.8ghz. That thing flew until the dual core era came.
Also was a great space heater for the colder months, which aren't really cold here in florida.
But yea that old athlon was hot, but still performed wonders.[/QUOTE]
What in the fuck were you smoking when you posted this?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19865190]wat
historically, AMD CPUs have been power hungry and hot. AMD was total shit pretty much mid 2000 - 2008[/QUOTE]
What on earth are you talking about. Athlon 64s were wiping the floor with Pentium 4s in 2004-2005.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4#Prescott[/url]
"Also of concern was the fact that a review showed that in games, it took a Prescott core overclocked to 5.2 GHz to soundly beat the performance of a 64-bit Athlon FX-55 that clocked at 2.6 GHz."
Pentium 4s were also far more power hungry than any Athlon 64. The Clawhammer core on the Athlon 64 started at 89W and worked its way down to 67W on later models, while the Prescott worked its way up to 115W and beyond during overclocking.
What killed AMD was Intel's strategy shift to built upon the old PIII architecture and focus on efficiency over raw clockspeed, like what it had been doing with the P4.
[QUOTE=microsnakey;19866291][IMG]http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/New-CPU-Overclocking-Record-Set-8-20GHz-2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
huh, that was the highest stock clock. not the highest overclock. Your post is so :downs: i give you box instead of books
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19865190]wat
historically, AMD CPUs have been power hungry and hot. AMD was total shit pretty much mid 2000 - 2008[/QUOTE]
Didn't stop the Athlon XP's killing the P4
You know what I'm wondering?
Since file sizes went form [B]Mega[/B] bytes to[B] Giga [/B]bytes to [B]Terra[/B] bytes, and Processing speeds went from [B]Mega [/B]hertz to [B]Giga [/B]hertz, why aren't we at [B]Terra [/B]hertz processing speeds yet.
[QUOTE=benjgvps;19865314]I remember reading something a few days ago when looking for specs on an AMD CPU I got from a friend. Something along the lines of the clockspeed not being a good way to compare it to a P4, and that if a P4 and an Athlon CPU of the same clockspeed were put side by side, the AMD could knock the pants of the P4.[/QUOTE]
This is correct. It's also why AMD started naming it's CPUs "2700+" originally. The number was supposed to represent the equivalent Pentium clock required to match it. Of course, they eventually deviated from that.
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;19866593]huh, that was the highest stock clock. not the highest overclock. Your post is so :downs: i give you box instead of books[/QUOTE]
Yours were overclocks an so was mine
I don't get it ma
[QUOTE=Karmah;19866812]You know what I'm wondering?
Since file sizes went form [B]Mega[/B] bytes to[B] Giga [/B]bytes to [B]Terra[/B] bytes, and Processing speeds went from [B]Mega [/B]hertz to [B]Giga [/B]hertz, why aren't we at [B]Terra [/B]hertz processing speeds yet.[/QUOTE]
Damn you for making me want to steal a renderfarm! :saddowns:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
