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

91–100 of 180 posts

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

#91

Post by elmigranto »

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…

> have your computer accurately and quickly take notes from your speech

Well, about those accurately and _your_ computer parts… :)

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

#92

Post by szatkus »

iamaaditya wrote: post #12
kevin2r wrote: post #2

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

Technically it was heat but mostly it was due to (i) Economics, there was less demand for faster clock speed. Otherwise more research could have gone towards solving heat problem. (ii) Each cycle of CPU was more efficient with ability to execute multiple instructions in a single cycle and with more efficient instruction sets. Surprisingly, power consumption also made huge impact. As tablets and laptops got more popul…

I accidentaly underclocked my old CPU (Athlon 651K) to 800MHz and found out after about 2 weeks when I bought The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. Other than that it was fine, sometime little slow, but comfortable.

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

#93

Post by lostlogin »

djrogers wrote: post #89
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.

Siri sends data to the cloud for processing what you're asking for, but the actual speech-to-text can work locally these days. Try it - out your iPhone in airplane mode and fire up dictation - works like a charm.

Can I ask what you would dictate that doesn't need an internet connection? A note or a shopping list come to mind, but that's it for me.

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

#94

Post by piyush_soni »

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 is pathetic, really. Try Google Now, or the new Assistant on Google Pixel.

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

#95

Post by hvidgaard »

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.

Marketing people write statements like this. They don't ask for conservative estimates.

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

#96

Post by accurrent »

lostlogin wrote: post #93
djrogers wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Siri sends data to the cloud for processing what you're asking for, but the actual speech-to-text can work locally these days. Try it - out your iPhone in airplane mode and fire up dictation - works like a charm.

Can I ask what you would dictate that doesn't need an internet connection? A note or a shopping list come to mind, but that's it for me.

Actually I hate the fact that google sends my voice over the network , not because of privacy but because I have to pay for the additional Data sent.

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

#97

Post by jfindley »

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.

If you only use your computer for web browsing, then sure.

But the consumer market is more than just this. Several popular "consumer" applications, such as gaming and photo/video editing, continue to see benefit from increases in CPU performance, and single-core performance (what most people actually want when they ask for higher clock speeds), continues to be very relevant to this day. Not all workloads are easily parallelizable.

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

#98

Post by Dylan16807 »

inlineint wrote: post #76
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.…

It's very easy to design a CPU such that signals do not have to cross it in one cycle. The speed of light is unlikely to ever cap the speed of a CMOS processor.

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

#99

Post by dx034 »

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…

Alexa can only recognize the keywords. Which is also why you can only choose between 3, because the device isn't able to detect anything else. After that, the command will be analyzed in Amazon's datacenter.

I don't know of any smartphone or similar device that would interpret voice commands locally.

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

#100

Post by semi-extrinsic »

accurrent wrote: post #96
lostlogin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask what you would dictate that doesn't need an internet connection? A note or a shopping list come to mind, but that's it for me.

Actually I hate the fact that google sends my voice over the network , not because of privacy but because I have to pay for the additional Data sent.

How much do you pay for data, and how much do you dictate, for this to be an actual gripe?

I assume Google encodes the data in something like iSAC [1], requiring 32 kbit/s for good quality speech, so an hour of dictating is 3600 x 32/(8 x 1024) = 14 MB.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Speech_Audio_Codec

Post reply on HN