Interesting. One day, maybe one day, Intel will release a desktop processor that is worth upgrading to from my 6 year old 2600K. One that doesn't cost $1723, that is.
10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
151–160 of 180 posts
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the suggestion is that when "one core" is running, you switch around which core it is that's actually hot, so they're taking turns generating the heat. Obviously there's some cost there in sharing registers, cache, etc, but it's an interesting notion.
The Windows Kernel already does this automatically, at a period of around 10-100ms. If you look at a single threaded program it will actually utilise all cores not one, by default its not locked affinity and the thread skips around.
Interesting, do you have a source for this? I'm curious to know more about the rationale for doing such a thing.
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#153Just to give a little intuition for exactly how fast your CPU runs (assuming ~3 GHz), a single cycle takes about as much time as it takes a photon to travel from your monitor to your eyeball.
299,792,458 meters/second ÷ 3,000,000,000/second = 9.99 cm Just how close are you sitting to your monitor?
[deleted]
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Nope. It is not just thermals but also memory latency. If you have four cores and each has two register files you can get 8x the bandwidth at the same latency. That 10GHz talk was a lie on the part of Intel to intimidate people away from AMD, not only would a 10GHZ P4 melt down, but it would be stalled all the time from memory latency. So many things did not work that it was not an honest mistake. Today there is talk…
>Today there is talk of a big clock rate bump (to 200 GHZ or so) if they go to a different semiconductor, but at that point you probably need a fiber optic or terahertz wave link to memory to keep the pipeline full.
You talk as if there couldn't possibly be a benefit to an increase in speed without a corresponding increase in memory bandwidth. Whilst it wouldn't be an optimally efficient system, if we /could/ bump to 9GHz (or 200GHz), wouldn't it be worth doing so for at least some kinds of calculations, even if the memory can't keep up?
edit: Both responses were super-interesting. Don't wanna reply to both, but thanks all :)
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the suggestion is that when "one core" is running, you switch around which core it is that's actually hot, so they're taking turns generating the heat. Obviously there's some cost there in sharing registers, cache, etc, but it's an interesting notion.
The Windows Kernel already does this automatically, at a period of around 10-100ms. If you look at a single threaded program it will actually utilise all cores not one, by default its not locked affinity and the thread skips around.
[deleted]
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Windows Kernel already does this automatically, at a period of around 10-100ms. If you look at a single threaded program it will actually utilise all cores not one, by default its not locked affinity and the thread skips around.
Interesting, do you have a source for this? I'm curious to know more about the rationale for doing such a thing.
The Linux kernel does the same thing. Run htop and run a single threaded workload. You'll see it migrate around between all the cores.
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#157Interesting. One day, maybe one day, Intel will release a desktop processor that is worth upgrading to from my 6 year old 2600K. One that doesn't cost $1723, that is.
Define worth?
They have released a process that is worth upgrading to: https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Pro...
https://ark.intel.com/products/52214/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-Pro...
There are a massive host of improvements between those two processors. Each release since Sandy Bridge has continued to increase performance between 5 to 10% in most tasks and more in some specifics. Over 4 releases that is a noticeable effect.
That processor in the US is 350 Dollars.
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#158My 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…
"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."
You're forgetting two things:
1 - Games
2 - VR
Games especially have a very long history of having a bottomless appetite for more and more powerful hardware every year as they push the limits of what's possible.
VR is dramatically upping hardware requirements, and those requirements are going to exponentially increase as consumers start to demand and expect 8k per eye, full motion, high framerate, 360 degree, 3D, wide field of view, interactive VR -- all on smaller and lighter headsets, ideally wirelessly.
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each switch of a gate causes energy to be expended. When a transistor switches, there is some current flowing and some voltage across the source and sink. That voltage * current is greater than zero, and therefore requires power. This is opposed to the stable non-switching state where there is no current and therefore no power. So, because each switch consumes the same amount of power, the power consumed is directly…
it's even worse - transistors require more voltage to reliably switch at higher frequencies, e.g. http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/22nm/powersm.j...
And to get even more pedantic, it's even worse than that alone implies because switching power increases with the square of voltage.
We're also at the point where transistor leakage current matters. All transistors leak a tiny amount of current even without switching. Alone this might only be a few µA, but pack enough of them together on a die and that might add up to hundreds of mA. Combine that with higher voltages so the chip can run at high clock speeds, and the fact that leakage increases with temperature (which will be driven by higher voltages and frequencies), and all of a sudden you have a feedback loop which can cause you to burn a few extra Watts before you've even done anything.
Re: 10GHz at under 1V by 2005 - The future of Intel’s manufacturing processes [2000]
#160The current generation of Intel chips can be overclocked comfortably to 5ghz with a simple water cooling setup.
You only have to risk frying your computer and destroying your data if the water cooler springs a leak.