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

101–110 of 180 posts

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

#101

Post by wscott »

Glad to see the correct answer at the top here. The "fireball" section of the P4 did run at double the frequency as the rest of the processor. So internally that was considered the processor frequency.

One of my first contributions to the Linux kernel was a bugfix to the bogomips routine. It stored the result in a 32-bit variable and our 8+ GHz chilled test machines would cause that to wrap.

It was then determined that the processor would be marketed using the slow clock frequency. This was the right answer, but it didn't feel like it at the time.

That article predates the marketing change. It might have made them realized they needed that change.

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

#102

Post by qball »

Jedd wrote: post #68

My first computer ran at a touch over 1MHz, and I've had a lifetime of needing (sic) to upgrade my computer every couple of years to chase or improve upon the same perceived performance levels. It's refreshing that -- despite not having 10GHz CPU's available -- my 6yo CPU/mobo still does not feel in any way slow or in need of upgrade. Yes, other components have offset the relatively slow pace of CPU improvements (GPU…

>6yo CPU/mobo still does not feel in any way slow or in need of upgrade

The limiting factors have changed- or rather, the limiting computers have changed.

Throwing more client horsepower or internet speed at the problem can't solve the fact that the server (and to a limited extent, an internet connection) has to deliver both a huge amount of JavaScript and the (typically image/video/audio-heavy) content itself.

The client is always underutilized- the fact that smartphone apps (or rather, cached local copies of what would normally be a website) have similar performance to a modern desktop PC should speak volumes about that. It's probably why Microsoft smartphone-ized Windows; though their execution of that was awful and it didn't help that WinRT wasn't mature on release.

And raw server performance (like desktop performance) has been at a plateau for a while now as well. The lack of competition for Intel doesn't help that (maybe AMD's new processor line will start driving improvements again, but there are no hard numbers on performance; and higher-TDP ARM designs aren't currently competitive with Intel's in this space either).

Until this changes, and there's nothing to indicate it will on Intel's roadmaps, clients will continue to be good enough- it might be the first time in history where computers (since 2008 or so) are replaced because the hardware failed and not because they were insufficiently fast.

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

#103

Post by Jedd »

qball wrote: post #102
Jedd wrote: post #68

My first computer ran at a touch over 1MHz, and I've had a lifetime of needing (sic) to upgrade my computer every couple of years to chase or improve upon the same perceived performance levels. It's refreshing that -- despite not having 10GHz CPU's available -- my 6yo CPU/mobo still does not feel in any way slow or in need of upgrade. Yes, other components have offset the relatively slow pace of CPU improvements (GPU…

>6yo CPU/mobo still does not feel in any way slow or in need of upgrade The limiting factors have changed- or rather, the limiting computers have changed. Throwing more client horsepower or internet speed at the problem can't solve the fact that the server (and to a limited extent, an internet connection) has to deliver both a huge amount of JavaScript and the (typically image/video/audio-heavy) content itself. The c…

You make some good points -- and to be candid, I didn't touch on the network effect(s) because I was trying to maintain some brevity / focus in my original post.

Aside -- I grew up in the days before network reliance (or even network presence) consequently I don't think of my 32GB / 8 core / 8TB / 32" monitored computer as an enhanced VT52. :) Though I certainly respect the fact that for many people, once you exceed the grunt required to render HTTP(S) at an acceptable speed, there's no great interest in a faster computer.

Your observations on Intel -- is it possible they were a bit more prescient than we typically give them credit for, insofar as not pursuing ever faster CPU's (which would now have been considered relatively unnecessary for the majority of installations)?

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

#104

Post by philliphaydon »

Kiro wrote: post #79
new299 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have an iPhone now and don't bother with Siri because it's wrong more often than right.

Between Apple, Google, and Microsoft. To me only Cortana is worth using. For example. If I say "text prentice" neither Siri or Google Now can figure it out. But 100% of the time Cortana picks it up.

I do miss my windows phone :(

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

#105

Post by amelius »

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…

> Although the transistors can technically run at 9 GHz, the resulting power density is very difficult to cool.

But nowadays we have processors with multiple cores, where sometimes you need only 1 core (and it needs to be fast). So would it be an idea to increase clock frequency for those cores, but multiplex them quickly to allow them to cool?

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

#106

Post by userbinator »

Over a decade later, even overclockers haven't managed to reach 10GHz --- but some have come close:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fx-8150-overclock-9ghz-...

At 10GHz, light travels approximately 3cm between each period of the clock.

Note that transistors which operate above 10GHz are not rare and used in microwave applications; as I understand it, the difficulty is in creating logic circuits with them and at a scale suitable for a CPU.

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

#107

Post by lmm »

amelius wrote: post #105
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…

> Although the transistors can technically run at 9 GHz, the resulting power density is very difficult to cool. But nowadays we have processors with multiple cores, where sometimes you need only 1 core (and it needs to be fast). So would it be an idea to increase clock frequency for those cores, but multiplex them quickly to allow them to cool?

There's a limited form of this already - on many multicore processors if you're running a single-threaded workload then "turbo boost" or similar will allow the one running core to clock higher than normal. Not aware of the multiplexing idea being implemented, but I'm not sure how much value that would give - I suspect the overall amount of heat to be dissipated is the limiting factor more than where exactly it is in the package.

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

#108

Post by jzwinck »

amelius wrote: post #105
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…

> Although the transistors can technically run at 9 GHz, the resulting power density is very difficult to cool. But nowadays we have processors with multiple cores, where sometimes you need only 1 core (and it needs to be fast). So would it be an idea to increase clock frequency for those cores, but multiplex them quickly to allow them to cool?

That's just a bit different to Intel Turbo Boost which has been widely deployed for a while. When fewer cores are needed it will increase clock speed on a small number of cores if there is work to do.

Some BIOSes have settings to completely disable a bunch of cores to enable more turbo boosting.

This isn't as sophisticated in thermal as what you outlined, but it saves on cache coherence.

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

#109

Post by krylon »

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.

On Android, it has worked well for me for simple things (e.g. "Remind me to take my laundry off the hanger tomorrow at 15:00"). Have not tried anything fancy, though.

A coworker once told his smartphone, "Tell me a dirty joke". It kind of worked, it opened a web search for "dirty joke". Cortana really impressed me by actually telling a joke; it was about dirty laundry (but I suspect that was intentional to avoid offending people). ;-)

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

#110

Post by redcalx »

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…

There's an argument that when the current s-curve (sigmoid) starts to reach its limit we start looking for other ways of obtaining improvements, such that over time we have a series of sigmoids and overall exponential progress... until the final sigmoid.

It reminds me of Malthus thinking the economy/world was doomed because we were about to run out of trees, and then we started making significant use of coal (coal had been used for a long time, but only on a small scale).

Post reply on HN