mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

View Poll Results: Will Intel or AMD make a processor in the next five years that's faster than 4GHz at stock?
Yes, I think so. 20 76.92%
No, I don't think so. 4 15.38%
Gigahertz, what's that? 0 0%
Moore's law is about to die a horrible death. 2 7.69%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-04-01, 00:33   #1
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default Will Intel or AMD sell a cpu faster than 4GHz in the next five years?

Who here thinks Intel or AMD will sell a processor within the next five years that's faster than 4GHz at stock voltage? And how the heck do I get the polling function to work(checking the box doesn't seem to work)
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-01, 05:12   #2
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

23×5×17 Posts
Default

"Moore's law" has nothing to do with clock speed.
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-01, 09:14   #3
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

12B616 Posts
Default

Five years is waaay too conservative. Should be two years (three at the most) before 4 GHz is done-and-dusted, most likely by /both/ Intel & AMD.

By that time, both the core count as well as GFLOPS rating/core would have also tripled. By five years, some kind of GPU-on-chip would've brought TFLOPS capability to the CPUs.

Man, can I predict them or what!
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-01, 19:38   #4
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
Mar 2004

3·167 Posts
Default

I think so, but before that, I think we'll see a popular 8 core PC

Last fiddled with by JuanTutors on 2007-04-01 at 19:39 Reason: text not showing up
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-01, 20:47   #5
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

787 Posts
Default

Entirely irrelevant. Doing existing instructions in a fraction of the amount of clock cycles it takes now is much more promising. Besides, LL tests can be very easily done in parallel by doing multiple LL tests at the same time. The Core 2 Duo has less cycles / second than the Pentium IV and does more work at lower electricity costs. The real question should be: shall we see processors running at lower speeds than the Core 2 Duo doing more work in the same time?

Last fiddled with by tha on 2007-04-01 at 20:49
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-02, 15:52   #6
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
Mar 2004

3·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
Entirely irrelevant. Doing existing instructions in a fraction of the amount of clock cycles it takes now is much more promising. Besides, LL tests can be very easily done in parallel by doing multiple LL tests at the same time. The Core 2 Duo has less cycles / second than the Pentium IV and does more work at lower electricity costs. The real question should be: shall we see processors running at lower speeds than the Core 2 Duo doing more work in the same time?
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. The original question essentially asks essentially for opinions on Moore's law, such as whether it will begin to fail now. Your question essentially asks whether processors will improve.
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-03, 00:36   #7
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dominicanpapi82 View Post
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. The original question essentially asks essentially for opinions on Moore's law, such as whether it will begin to fail now. Your question essentially asks whether processors will improve.
I considered this possibility, actually. I decided to limit things to one choice a vote, since the first and second choice contradict each other. Also, there's more than one way to interpret the question. I did indeed realize that the future probably has more instructions per clock in store for us.

Perhaps I should have left out the last choice.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-03, 17:54   #8
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

31316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
I did indeed realize that the future probably has more instructions per clock in store for us.
From the Intel briefing mentioned in an article in another thread in this subforum it looks to me as the next big step for us is the four bit divider versus today's one bit divider.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-03, 22:41   #9
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5·701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
From the Intel briefing mentioned in an article in another thread in this subforum it looks to me as the next big step for us is the four bit divider versus today's one bit divider.
Looks like your pimping a pimping(metapimping?), but at least it's on topic. ;)
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-04, 01:32   #10
E_tron
 
E_tron's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Austin, TX

3×11×17 Posts
Default

I don't think there will be a 4ghz chip for many years to come. Maybe never, there seems to be a gremlin or troll under the 4ghz barrier.
E_tron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-27, 22:02   #11
Historian
 
Historian's Avatar
 
Mar 2010

43 Posts
Default Man, I'm enjoying digging up old threads...

It's been nearly three years since the original post, so I guess I'll bump this sucker up.

Right now, there are only two years left before we'll know the answer to the question in this poll, and it looks like it'll come down to the wire.

So far, the fastest stock processor still has not beaten the 3.8GHz record set by the Pentium 4 in 2005. According to the usually-reliable wikipedia, Intel will break that record with a 3.866 GHz processor, the core i5-680, which will be coming out a few months from now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors.

The 3.866 GHz speed is only available with turbo boost, but I'll assume that counts because nothing in this thread says that a 4GHz computer has to have that speed sustained when all cores are used. However, the Wikipedia article doesn't mention processors coming out after Q3 this year, so the one and a half year period between then and April 2012 will be filled with wild guesses and speculation. Here are my thoughts:

2011 will be the year that diminishing returns from increasing cores begins to play a major role. For 99% of people, there's little to no difference between 4 and 6 cores because most programs aren't multi-threaded. Because of that, it makes more sense to increase clock speed than to increase the number of cores, but the main question is when Intel and AMD will finally realize that.

Anyway, the poll has 20 "yes" votes and only 4 "no" votes right now. If it were possible, would anyone like to change their votes?
Historian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSP: 10 years old! Citrix Prime Sierpinski Project 1 2013-11-08 07:35
AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4Ghz 125W temps RickC Hardware 7 2010-09-12 05:25
4GHz for $400... Xyzzy Hardware 7 2004-06-16 22:10
Compaq ML370 G3 server 2x+2,4GHz reboot piotrkonarski Hardware 11 2004-03-03 12:16
Do we need a "Buy/Sell" forum? Xyzzy Lounge 6 2002-10-24 06:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:23.

Sun Dec 6 01:23:39 UTC 2020 up 2 days, 21:34, 0 users, load averages: 2.60, 2.94, 2.81

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.