From what I know, the material that chips are built on (silicon) is the ultimate roadblock to high clock speed. Until a new material is found that is better than silicon, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see CPUs with >8 GHz.
I was watching a documentary on NatGeo the other day about creating artificial diamonds. They are currently working on creating diamonds in the shape of a cube or plane, so that they can be used as computer chips. Theoretically, diamond chips can go past 10 GHz, and they can withstand 7x higher temperatures than a silicon chip.
[editline]03:29PM[/editline]
[url=http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/81ghz-diamond-semiconductor-created-20030827/]Here's an article[/url] from 2003 about an experimental diamond semiconductor that reached 81 GHz
-snip-
My 3ghz p4 puts out a lot of heat, I wonder what the 3.8ghz version put out. Probably needed an industrial AC unit just for the cpu.
[QUOTE=tjl;19867199]From what I know, the material that chips are built on (silicon) is the ultimate roadblock to high clock speed. Until a new material is found that is better than silicon, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see CPUs with >8 GHz.
I was watching a documentary on NatGeo the other day about creating artificial diamonds. They are currently working on creating diamonds in the shape of a cube or plane, so that they can be used as computer chips. Theoretically, diamond chips can go past 10 GHz, and they can withstand 7x higher temperatures than a silicon chip.
[editline]03:29PM[/editline]
[url=http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/81ghz-diamond-semiconductor-created-20030827/]Here's an article[/url] from 2003 about an experimental diamond semiconductor that reached 81 GHz[/QUOTE]
Can't wait
Now CPU's will be 3x more expense:black101:
81ghz :aaaaa:
[QUOTE=microsnakey;19866869]Yours were overclocks an so was mine
I don't get it ma[/QUOTE]
[url]http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8Q9[/url]
read
my
post
again
There needs to be a better simpler way of colling the thing first that's what they need to work on or making them use less power.
[editline]06:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doritos_Man;19867499]Can't wait
Now CPU's will be 3x more expense:black101:
81ghz :aaaaa:[/QUOTE]
Growing then doping diamonds sounds like fun.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19865190]wat
historically, AMD CPUs have been power hungry and hot. AMD was total shit pretty much mid 2000 - 2008[/QUOTE]
Opterons would disagree with you
[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]
Because CPUs are build out of MOSFETs which are not good for high frequencies.
Also, a few hundred THz is the frequency of light. We will NEVER get into THz regime with a semi-conductor. We will always stick below a few hundred GHz for a silicon-based semiconductor. And with a MOSFET below 20 GHzs I'm sure.
[editline]09:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=gparent;19866857]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]
Wrong. The <number>+ was meant to be comparable to an Athlon XP overclocked to that specific amount of GHz in order to achieve the same performance.
It was never meant for direct comparision with an Intel-CPU.
[QUOTE=tjl;19867199]...erial that chips are built on (silicon) is the ultimate roadblock to high clock speed. Until a new material is found that is better than silicon, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see CPUs with >8 GHz....[/QUOTE]
Carbon Nano-Tubes.
Diamonds?
Well your complaining about 4ghz? I remember hearing about 23ghz single cores because of some new technology to do with transistors or something I cannot remember but they were supposed to be public in 2007. Bullshit :-(
[QUOTE=evilking1;19875713][url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061212091344.htm[/url]
845Ghz[/QUOTE]
This looks like a bipolar-transistor. They can be fast.
But since making billions of bipolar-transistors on a chip costs too much and is impracticable, CPUs use MOSFETs (Metal-Oxide Field-Effect-Transistor). Those are limited by frequency much harder than bipolar-transistors but are easier to handle.
Also MOSFETs are controlled by voltage and not by current on the gate. Therefore power consumption is [b]much[/b] less than with bipolar-transistors. Trying to build e.g. a core i7 CPU with bipolar-transistors might result into a 10 kW eating heating-machine.
[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]
Because Moore's Law works at different speeds to different components. Also the only real limit with hard drives is once you can't store a bit on anything smaller than a single atom. With processors you need to find ways of dissipating heat, increasing efficiency of each clock cycle, AND making sure that it all works on silicon. It's just not as simple as HURR DURR TURN IT UP TO 11 THAT WILL MAKE IT GO FASTER. It's easier just to put it at 10GHz but make each cycle have a higher efficiency.
Yeah just like car performance, you do a lot more than just make it have bigger engine displacement to make it faster. (Except in America)
well i have a P4 at 3.0 GHz (P4, never forget the LEGENDARY OCs on that processor) and i doubt its better than an i3/5 at 2.6/2.8 GHz.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;19881079]well i have a P4 at 3.0 GHz (P4, never forget the LEGENDARY OCs on that processor) and i doubt its better than an i3/5 at 2.6/2.8 GHz.[/QUOTE]
Are you at all serious?
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;19881079]well i have a P4 at 3.0 GHz (P4, never forget the LEGENDARY OCs on that processor) and i doubt its better than an i3/5 at 2.6/2.8 GHz.[/QUOTE]
facepunch home of winners
[editline]07:45PM[/editline]
-snip-
[QUOTE=aVoN;19874826]Wrong. The <number>+ was meant to be comparable to an Athlon XP overclocked to that specific amount of GHz in order to achieve the same performance.
It was never meant for direct comparision with an Intel-CPU.[/QUOTE]
At some point, yes, they had a series where they compared it with the earlier Thunderbird model, but the system was originally invented to combat Intel's advertising of higher clock speed, because their processor architecture was less efficient.
This can all be confirmed from various sources.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;19862266]Because Intel and AMD aren't oven manufacturers.[/QUOTE]
Ahahahaha
[editline]06:52PM[/editline]
What a great post, ahahaha
Multi cores? I think I saw something on youtube from intel about 80 cores.
I'm not kidding, see for yourself:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97uSsjjoSNM[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAKG0UvtzpE[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fcdJPKp3o&feature=related[/media]
[editline]10:00PM[/editline]
IMHO, AMD will lose any cpu battle after this gets out to consumers.
[QUOTE=Scientwist;19889743]Multi cores? I think I saw something on youtube from intel about 80 cores.
I'm not kidding, see for yourself:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97uSsjjoSNM[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAKG0UvtzpE[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fcdJPKp3o&feature=related[/media]
[editline]10:00PM[/editline]
IMHO, AMD will lose any cpu battle after this gets out to consumers.[/QUOTE]
no
[editline]03:06AM[/editline]
most games + apps don't even support 4 cores yet
Except with a processer running 80 cores and a good selection that do support multi core, you'll never if not almost never have to worry about whats going on in the background.
So, yes.
Not to mention at the time when it does come out the the public a large number of apps may likely have multi core support. It would be a smart choice on the programers part, whom ever they may be.
I can't even oc my E8400.
I don't know either, but we did something right on the i7 where it runs 2x faster than the core 2 extreme, at a lower clock...
[QUOTE=windwakr;19891089]First, the video said 80 FPU cores, not Processor cores(BIG DIFFERENCE!). (0:36 into the video) "It has 80 simple floating point cores on it"
Your better off using CUDA for that kind of TFLOPS, newer cards can do even better than that 80 fpu chip.
That chip gets ~1TFLOP, a GTX295 can get around 2TFLOPS.
Second, speed still matters. Many programs can't be threaded at all for various reasons, so 80 cores with low speed would suck.[/QUOTE]
Also remember that this is still really new tech so its not going to be so great at the start. And it does not seem like you watched all the videos, otherwise you'd have seen that it runs at a hair over 3Ghz and has the abilty to run at 5Ghz.
[Quote=Intel guy from first video]Running at 3.16Ghz the new chip achives 1.01 TFlops of computation and draws just 62 watts. Thats less power then many modern desktop processors. Its saves power by shunting idle cores into sleep mode then instantly turning them on as there needed, and it can run even faster but loses efficancy at higher speeds. Performing at 1.63 TFlops at 5.1Ghz and 1.81 TFlops at 5.7Ghz [/quote]
This chip is also designed to shut down over heated cores and turn them back on once they've cooled again. Heres another quote to burn your eyes with:
[quote=Sriram Vangal on performance results from second video]This side shows 80 tiles consisting of dual floating point engines and an on-die router responsable for comunication between the tiles. Ok, so the maximum frequency achived on this chip is 5Ghz @ 1.6 TFlops.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the i7 and the next i9 are not able to do very much if any of that.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0JodKgZ0A[/media]
6.5GHz (2009)
Finnish person OCing there yai!
[QUOTE=Facepunch her;19897621][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0JodKgZ0A[/media]
6.5GHz (2009)
Finnish person OCing there yai![/QUOTE]
reckon they could of hit 7ghz...? also, my rig only gets ~15k 3dmark06 :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Facepunch her;19897621]Vid-e-Oh
6.5GHz (2009)
Finnish person OCing there yai![/QUOTE]
It's pretty crazy how liquid nitrogen can be used for that. I had read that a number of the computers used in navy ships are sealed and are filled with LN. My dad was in the navy and had told me about it too, however credible that/he is.
I'm still going to keep an eye out for that 80 core, I'd still like to see what it can do.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;19868194]Opterons would disagree with you[/QUOTE]
If you're looking at Opterons, let me look at Xeons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
