Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 180 posts

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#21

Post by monocasa »

iamaaditya wrote: post #12
kevin2r wrote: post #2

So, what was the reason CPUs could not scale vertically (higher frequency)? Temperature? Stability?

Technically it was heat but mostly it was due to (i) Economics, there was less demand for faster clock speed. Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets. Surprisingly, power consumption also made huge impact. As tablets and laptops got more popul…

> Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets.

Dude, Intel spends something like $80B/yr on R&D. This is closer to hitting fundamental laws of physics barriers.

They killed off their P4 line and developed their mobile line for a reason.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#23

Post by xanton »

aisofteng wrote: post #8
dzhiurgis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not enough time for electrons to move. Photons - another story.

This comment makes no sense. Neither electrons nor photons are what move through wires to propagate electrical signals.

All the theory behind microelectronics is all about about electrons, "holes" and how fast and where they move.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#24

Post by Strom »

It's interesting that while we aren't at 10 GHz quite yet, the functionality that was mentioned in the article [1][2] is here and works even on budget smartphones.

--

[1] Imagine being able to speak normally with your computer as you would a secretary sitting next to you and have your computer accurately and quickly take notes from your speech.

[2] Imagine logging onto your computer not via a user name and a password but by sitting in front of your display and having it scan your face to figure out if you are allowed access to the computer.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#25

Post by kashkhan »

monocasa wrote: post #21
iamaaditya wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it was heat but mostly it was due to (i) Economics, there was less demand for faster clock speed. Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets. Surprisingly, power consumption also made huge impact. As tablets and laptops got more popul…

> Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets. Dude, Intel spends something like $80B/yr on R&D. This is closer to hitting fundamental laws of physics barriers. They killed off their P4 line and developed their mobile line for a reason.

the $80B a year in R&D is off by an order of magnitude.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/intel-corporation-...

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#26

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

gregoryrueda wrote: post #18
wapz wrote: post #7

> Realistically speaking, we should be able to see NetBurst based processors reach somewhere between 8 – 10GHz in the next five years before the architecture is replaced yet again was a statement made by anandtech. Did Intel actually strive for those numbers?

Haven't we reached the point of diminishing returns regarding processor speed? I believe this to be true for the consumer market.

Why would that be the case? If we could run CPUs at 50Ghz with no problems why wouldn't we?

Edit: I probably exaggerate. I just mean that higher clock speed still have benefits.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#27

Post by Cyph0n »

iamaaditya wrote: post #12
kevin2r wrote: post #2

So, what was the reason CPUs could not scale vertically (higher frequency)? Temperature? Stability?

Technically it was heat but mostly it was due to (i) Economics, there was less demand for faster clock speed. Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets. Surprisingly, power consumption also made huge impact. As tablets and laptops got more popul…

No, it was only because of power density i.e. too much heat dissipated in a really small area. There is no way to "solve" this issue, other than to just throw more cooling at it. And since more cooling = more money, Intel (and friends) went down the multicore route instead.

No amount of R&D spending can bend the laws of physics to overcome the inherent limitations of silicon. I'm sure Intel also looked into alternative semiconductors (e.g., III-V) before giving up on the 10 GHz dream.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#28

Post by kushan2020 »

gaze wrote: post #15
aisofteng wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment makes no sense. Neither electrons nor photons are what move through wires to propagate electrical signals.

I'd definitely say electrons propagate through wires to carry signals. The electrons charge the gates on the fets which opens or closes the channel, which allows electrons to flow through another wire. I wouldn't say it's terribly explanatory tho

Well that is not correct @gaze.

Although your light turns on very quickly when you flip the switch, and you find it impossible to flip off the light and get in bed before the room goes dark, the actual drift velocity of electrons through copper wires is very slow. It is the change or "signal" which propagates along wires at essentially the speed of light. refer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#29

Post by wmf »

wapz wrote: post #7

> Realistically speaking, we should be able to see NetBurst based processors reach somewhere between 8 – 10GHz in the next five years before the architecture is replaced yet again was a statement made by anandtech. Did Intel actually strive for those numbers?

Yes, Tejas was designed for >7 GHz, but it probably would have shipped at 4-5 GHz (while providing similar or lower performance than a 2.x GHz Conroe) due to poor transistor scaling.

Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]

#30

Post by flukus »

Strom wrote: post #24

It's interesting that while we aren't at 10 GHz quite yet, the functionality that was mentioned in the article [1][2] is here and works even on budget smartphones. -- [1] Imagine being able to speak normally with your computer as you would a secretary sitting next to you and have your computer accurately and quickly take notes from your speech. [2] Imagine logging onto your computer not via a user name and a password…

The functionality existed on desktop computers at the time, so it's not really a prediction.
Post reply on HN