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

41–50 of 180 posts

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

#41

Post by adt2bt »

kevin2r wrote: post #2

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

Mostly heat dissipation. Assuming you hold voltage constant, heat increases linearly with frequency. Also, as process nodes get smaller, you increase the # of transistors per square inch, so a jump to a new node can also increase heat generation quadratically if all else stays constant.

As other commenters mentioned, you can counteract this with better cooling, but eventually the marginal $/watt of cooling isn't worth the tradeoff of lower speeds & multicore processors.

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

#42

Post by yuhong »

wmf wrote: post #11

Article says: Obviously this 8 – 10GHz clock range would be based on Intel’s 0.07-micron process that is forecasted to debut in 2005. These processors will run at less than 1 volt, 0.85v being the current estimate. Intel introduced a 65 nm (0.065 micron) process in 2006. The "Cedar Mill" Pentium 4 processor ran at 3.6 GHz at a whopping 1.3V although a small double-pumped part of the processor ran at 7.2 GHz. It could…

The fun thing is that they were reducing the power with each stepping by that time.

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

#43

Post by kayoone »

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.

For Desktop computing of normal people ? Maybe, but there are a lot of people and businesses that can always use more CPU power. High end CPUs will also eventually trickle down to lower powered devices and i still think modern Ultrabooks could be faster than they are.

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

#45

Post by dottrap »

I'm surprised Intel made this bold claim so late. When I was in college in the late 90's, my computer architecture prof said the physics problems get really hard starting around 4 to 8 Ghz. He said it as it was common knowledge in the industry.

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

#46

Post by kristianp »

wmf wrote: post #11

Article says: Obviously this 8 – 10GHz clock range would be based on Intel’s 0.07-micron process that is forecasted to debut in 2005. These processors will run at less than 1 volt, 0.85v being the current estimate. Intel introduced a 65 nm (0.065 micron) process in 2006. The "Cedar Mill" Pentium 4 processor ran at 3.6 GHz at a whopping 1.3V although a small double-pumped part of the processor ran at 7.2 GHz. It could…

It appears that the double-pumped adds aren't used any more. I thought they would have been good to keep, Adds being so common.

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

#47

Post by slededit »

ma2rten wrote: post #39
kashkhan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the $80B a year in R&D is off by an order of magnitude. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/intel-corporation-...

Isn't an order of magnitude 10x? According to your link they spent $12.74 billion in 2016.

Although not normally used for smaller amounts it can go in both directions. ~1/10th is still an accurate if archaic use of the term.

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

#48

Post by Zombieball »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #26
gregoryrueda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this "conveyor example" from Intel is a good explanation as to why: https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2014/02/19/why-has-cp...

I think that you would cease to see any acceleration from increased clock speed unless you also sped up other parts of the processor / computer.

I think your sentiment is correct. If we can take advantage of higher clock speeds, then why not do it?

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

#49

Post by Strom »

flukus wrote: post #30
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.

I certainly don't remember anything of usable quality being available to end-users. My Windows 98 machine could barely play 360p videos and didn't even have a camera. The voice recognition that I do remember trying was of very low accuracy.

Do you remember any specifics of where & how exactly these features were available?

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

#50

Post by faitswulff »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #35
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…

Example 1, if we're referring to the likes of Siri and Alexa isn't thanks to improvements in personal computer technology - said platforms send your speech recording off to a massive datacenter for processing, no need for 10Ghz processors there. Example 2 requires the use of depth-sensing and heat-sensitive cameras to avoid trivial "show a photo of an authorized user" attacks - that's not really CPU-dependent either.

RE example 1, there is offline voice recognition, though.
Post reply on HN