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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by NamTaf »

I remember reading this news (and perhaps even this exact article - it certainly feels familiar) back when it was released and being so excited as a 15 year old gaming nerd. It really was a time when stuff was changing so rapidly - and those changes were resulting in massive, really obvious performance gains - that you couldn't help but just look forward to where it might go if the pace continued. Everything was about the big frequency numbers and it was easy to buy into the hype.

It'd be interesting to know the sort of IPC delta between a Netburst architecture and Kaby Lake. Also, it'd be interesting to know how theoretically fast you'd have to push Netburst to see the same performance as Kaby Lake.

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

#62

Post by Tuna-Fish »

kristianp wrote: post #46
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.

They are not used because with transistors that keep getting smaller but that don't get much faster, it's better to just have more add units in parallel than it is to run the ones you have faster. A modern Intel CPU effectively has 4 add units to the 2 of the P4.

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

#63

Post by Strom »

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.

Siri's voice recognition definitely isn't state of the art, although it got a lot better for me with iOS 10. However even the Google app on iOS has leaps & bounds better recognition in my experience.

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

#64

Post by SyneRyder »

stephengillie wrote: post #51
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.

Not sure if Siri and Alexa (and Google Now) send every recording to a data center - the .NET speech recognition libraries ship with Windows, so all audio data stays local to your PC, afaik. I'd expect Cortana leverages these libraries as well, instead of sending all data to a remote server. You can build basic functionality into a speech bot in Powershell ("PowerShiri, what time is it?" "PowerShiri, what is the weath…

At least with Google Now, you can go into your Google Account and listen to recordings of everything you've ever asked via voice search:

https://myactivity.google.com/item?product=29

(If the Product 29 parameter doesn't work, click on "Item View" in the left and filter by "Voice & Audio".)

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

#65

Post by y_u_no_rust »

stephengillie wrote: post #51
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.

Not sure if Siri and Alexa (and Google Now) send every recording to a data center - the .NET speech recognition libraries ship with Windows, so all audio data stays local to your PC, afaik. I'd expect Cortana leverages these libraries as well, instead of sending all data to a remote server. You can build basic functionality into a speech bot in Powershell ("PowerShiri, what time is it?" "PowerShiri, what is the weath…

Google defiantly is you can listen to your past queries online and I know the police request alexa voice recordings from time to time

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

stephengillie wrote: post #51
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.

Not sure if Siri and Alexa (and Google Now) send every recording to a data center - the .NET speech recognition libraries ship with Windows, so all audio data stays local to your PC, afaik. I'd expect Cortana leverages these libraries as well, instead of sending all data to a remote server. You can build basic functionality into a speech bot in Powershell ("PowerShiri, what time is it?" "PowerShiri, what is the weath…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by _hhkc »

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.

Dictation in iOS9 and later can be used without an internet connection on newer iPhones.

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

#68

Post by Jedd »

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's for gamers, SSD's for everyone, etc) but it feels like we're enjoying a lengthy era of 'good enough grunt' on the CPU front (for most of us).

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

#69

Post by largote »

gaze wrote: post #5
kevin2r wrote: post #2

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

If I understand correctly, Intel CPUs around that time were super deeply pipelined so you could meet timing closure at such high frequencies. So yeah you can keep pushing the clock-speeds up and up but now a mispredicted branch really shoots you in the foot. Makes sense at the time because people associated clock speed directly with performance. Higher frequency more better. Intel kinda gave up on that at some point…

Those very deep pipelines are the reason NetBurst was very good at some tasks but not so great for general use. They made branching mispredictions be really expensive as a pipeline flush would result in a large number (~20 IIRC) cycles to be "wasted".

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

#70

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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.
Post reply on HN