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

71–80 of 180 posts

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

#71

Post by lorenzhs »

tuxracer wrote: post #40
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Android has had face unlock built in for some time. A naive way it mitigates the "unlock with photo" vulnerability is an option requiring you to blink. Not as robust as 3d, heat sensitive cameras but it's at least not a trivial as showing a photo to beat it. The impressive amount of processing power available on many smartphones today certainly contributes to this being a practical unlock method.

You're right, you also need to sweep across the eyes with a pencil to defeat that. In case you're interested in more detail, Google starbug's excellent talk "ich sehe, also bin ich... du" (there's an English translation).

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

#73

Post by ChuckMcM »

Ah yes, the 10Ghz CPU. Now if you run 6 cores at 2.5Ghz each[1] is the 15Ghz? By the end of 2001 it was clear that Intel really needed to rethink things. And ever since that time we've had a series of "linear projections" which have come up short (process nodes, power levels, cpu power). Not to say we don't have some pretty awesome toys to play with that can do a lot more than machines of a decade ago could do, but every time someone takes an exponential and extends it out into the future to make a point, I stop and ask "And what if this is the end of this s-curve?" Nature hates an exponential almost as much as she hates vacuums :-)

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Xeon-2620-Processor-BX80621E526...

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

#74

Post by untoreh »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #70

Anecdotally, I've heard that Everquest 2 (released 2004) is still impossible to run at 60FPS with all graphical settings maxed; the devs attempted to future-proof it with speculative high-end graphics options, but they optimized for high-GHz processors which never arrived.

I would argue no mmo ever made has ever truly run at 60fps but that's another story I guess :p

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

#76

Post by inlineint »

kevin2r wrote: post #2

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

There is also another fundamental limit, the speed of light.

Because of the special relativity theory nothing including electrical current can transmit information faster than the speed of light (c = 3*10^10 cm/s). So if maximum size dimension of your CPU is say 2cm (I'm ignoring that they actually can have multiple smaller cores), then the maximum physically achievable frequency is upper bounded by size/c = 15 GHz.

Although it has not been reached yet, it has the same order of magnitude as the record frequencies achieved by overclockers using liquid nitrogen cooling (something a little below 9 GHz). Also it shows that reducing transistor size and as a consequence overall CPU size increases maximum physically allowed frequency.

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

#77

Post by rconti »

dottrap wrote: post #45

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.

Damn. The linked article says nothing about Intel claiming 10ghz, and the author is just speculating that, applying a 9x speed increase to Netburst (the same 9x they saw with the P6), 10ghz should be doable. But then the link at the bottom, "FACTS FROM INTEL" specifically mentions 10ghz, presumably from the horse's mouth.

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

#78

Post by elastic_church »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #73

Ah yes, the 10Ghz CPU. Now if you run 6 cores at 2.5Ghz each[1] is the 15Ghz? By the end of 2001 it was clear that Intel really needed to rethink things. And ever since that time we've had a series of "linear projections" which have come up short (process nodes, power levels, cpu power). Not to say we don't have some pretty awesome toys to play with that can do a lot more than machines of a decade ago could do, but e…

lol, I remember trying to explain those things, during the multi-core console wars.

turns out, flirting with women is more fulfilling than that after all

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

#79

Post by Kiro »

new299 wrote: post #55
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…

Is this really the experience of voice recognition people have? I can't get Siri to reliably create appointments... takes about 3 tries for the voice recognition to work correctly.

Definitely. Google Home picks up everything perfectly on the level that I'm really surprised the few times it actually fails.

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

#80

Post by aristidb »

I see three main failed predictions:

  - 10 GHz
  - long pipelines, I think we're currently at around 14 stages, which is more than P6 but less than Netburst (Pentium 4)
  - EUV lithography is still not a thing at 10 nm
Die I miss any important failed predictions?
Post reply on HN