Where are Intel's 10GHz Processors Hiding?

33

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

QPWimblik

When mores law hits a bump in the road the only way forward will be to change the materials from silicon to something else and crank the speed up. At some point in the next 20 years things will switch to a new speed war, 4GHz surly isn't the absolute speed a compter chip can go.

I supect by the mid 20's our Computers will be carbon based not silicon based and I supect eventually speeds will hit the frequency of visible light and beyond.

I suspect also CPU, GPGPU and RAM will be found on a single multi layed cube eventually.

Who know's by the 40's to 50's we might have mega core or even giga core processors.

avatar

megamegaprocessor

We are working on (and have) our MegaMegaProcessor

that runs between 20GHz - 100Ghz

 

We are also working on a Desktop and Laptop PCs

using these Processors aiming for 100GHz - 1THz (1000GHz) speeds.

 

Check out our website:

    http://jlc.iwarp.com

    JLC Robotics

Also our Blogs :

    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/megamegaprocessor/

avatar

megamegaprocessor

We are working on (and have) our MegaMegaProcessor

that runs between 20GHz - 100Ghz

 

We are also working on a Desktop and Laptop PCs

using these Processors aiming for 100GHz - 1THz (1000GHz) speeds.

 

Check out our website:

    http://jlc.iwarp.com

    JLC Robotics

Also our Blogs :

    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/megamegaprocessor/

avatar

jlsilicon

- Our Website :

http://jlc.iwarp.com/

- and we are NOT Chinese.

avatar

jlsilicon

We are working on a 100GHz Chip,

and hope to have it ready by 2011,

We should have it in production as a PC soon after in 2011.

avatar

billcheese5

To the extent of my limited computer knowledge, most games/applications dont even fully take advantage of the immense processing power of most modern-day GPU's. I think they should focus on taking advantage of both the CPU and GPU power before they focus on making the performance of either one insanely better. Just my humble opinion.

avatar

baker269

It's actualy pretty easy to max out a GPU at higher rezs

avatar

devin3627

someone in this forum said that they are going to have all in one CPUs... that is very possible. you would have to have 20nm CPUs or less NM CPUs that are all-in-one and with each small cpu small enough to be a 4 in one or 6 in one honeycomb like configuration with copper cooling in between each cpu. saying this that motherboards would have to have increased case cooling. but this won't happen because they are trying to do everything with multiple cores. there are limits, but i am sure the future will have ways to raise our fps for pc gaming.

avatar

baker269

The bottle neck for gamers (with newer, higher end systems) is GPUs and program efficiency. Can't find a game that uses much more then 50% usage on my i7. Nice to know that I will only need to upgrade my GPU over the next few years.

avatar

avenger48

But I do think that a practical, cool-running, quad or hex-core CPU stock-clocked at 4 GHz would be really nice. I think if they really tried, Intel or AMD COULD release a dual-core clocked at 10GHz (or at least capable of achieving that speed on LN2 in a suicide run), but the QC standards would need to be so tight and the design so new that the prices would make it completely impractical.  No one has really designed a chip for pure clocks since the days of the Pentium 4, so there would be a lot of redesigning to do.  In addition, one weak transistor or conductor that's a little too close together could send the whole thing to a screeching, flaming halt.  You would end up paying $2500+ for something which probably wouldn't be faster than a 980x.

Sorry for the wall of text. 

avatar

exarh

For the future of CPU or GPU the conclusion is simple: take the common part of the two (PU). So just Processing Unit would be enough. The tendency is to combine CPU and GPU by making programable chips, so they can be able to run any kind of aplication that require arithmetic calculations or graphic processing.

And you can take for example a mobile phone. A smartphone. It does everything by having one chip. Of course the performance is not so stunning, but it's more than acceptable for that performance segment.

But having everything in a chip is not something that can be dont in this moment, again, because of the heat caused by a too large silicon die. In a decade we will have "all in one"  chips and it is very possible they will integrate even memories.

avatar

HOYT

Im going to say were a long way away from 10ghz... unless you want to go back to single core chips, and i don't see that comeing anytime soon.  I mean theirs definatly reason cores came into play in the last 4 or 5 years, its because of a frequiency wall that was hit back with pentium 4. And someting tells me that this whole 10Ghz thing was predicted back when the move from 1ghz flew to 3ghz in a mater of just a few years.....  It seems to me that unless we can achieve processors built smaller than nm were crap out of luck. I mean your talking about more discoveries of like (High K) and new tech. Even below 22nm your probalably going to be lucky to see 4 ghz chips... becasue Intel and AMD just arent in any hurry to push things that far.... Also you almost have to wonder is 10ghz pushing realtime computing.... I mean thats dam fast.... 

 I'd have to say were more like 20 years away from say NOW.... befor you will see 10ghz. On ther other hand you may however see the overclock record hit 10ghz in this time frame... but thats only going to be because of Liquid Nitrogien and smaller nmchips....

avatar

K0BALT

nevr gonna happen in that time frame.... not at all. maybe an overclocke CPU by then, but not stock.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i7 920@4.4GHz,Heatkiller 3.0, (2X)GTX295 Quad-SLI, EVGA X58 3X SLI, 6GB DDR3 OCZ Gold

avatar

ScorpiG

Well, you could increase the base bus frequency that way you could do
the following:
200MHz * 13 = 2.6GHz (CPU 200 *20 =  4.0GHz)
400MHz * 7 = 2.8GHz   (CPU 400 *20 =  8.0GHz)
500MHz * 6 = 3.0GHz   (CPU 500 *20 = 10.0GHz)

Note: The above is in one direction only.

avatar

exarh

At high frequencies the circuits act like small antenas causing degradation of the signal transported. This is the main reason the frequencies are limited for. Insite a chip is a different situation as there are no more copper materials but silion and the frequencies can go a bit higher, but still there are several factors that can limit them, one of them being the temperature. As many atoms you move as big the liberated heat will be, so this is leading you consider the number of transistors per the amount of silicon used. This can be efficient by shrinking the process technology so you can use a biger number of transistors per the same amount of silicon used.

The CPUs are more and more complex so the frequency is the less importent part in this era, the most important being the instructions done per clock. As good the architecture will be, as good or efficient the chip will perform. 

Nobody care to reach 10Ghz! ...only the freaks , and acheiving nothing with it! The goal is to incorporate as much as we possibly can in a single chip, and doesn't realy matter if the GPU will be incorporated in the CPU or the reverse. Of course there are a lot of components  that can not be incorporated, but just imagine a PC being a single chip during the next decade.

In a decade from now the silicon will be close to its ends, inovative material will be in use, and this 10Ghz discussion will still be on topic.

avatar

omen3330

1. Software today does not make full use of current hardware, why would I need 10 Ghz?

2. I don't want to have to use my computer in the laundry room.

 

avatar

gendoikari1

I remember Tejas. NetBurst at 7GHz does not good processor make, unless computer components have to be fireproofed before use. 

SPAM FILTER MUST DIE

avatar

Soul_0830

how about if we look at it this way. I don't think that evan intel though this could be possible when they predicted.

lol

but still the below is possible.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10GHz (Multi Core Processor)

avatar

avenger48

A Core i7 980x is at 19.98 GHz (3.33 x 6), or almost 40 GHz when figuring in Hyperthreading.  Congratulations, Intel, I can imagine the marketing spin now.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Instead of the programs being made to take advantage of multi threading let the OS handle multi threading. Lets say you have a six core processor and an OS designed to take full advantage of them all. Let the OS handle all processor duties. It makes sense to me. We need a DirectX API for the CPU.

And I think that it's entirely possible that we can see a 10ghz processor by next year. Build a new CPU that has fewer transistors and build them tiny. Make the circuit super efficient. For cooling all you would need is a water cooling block connected to a slushy machine at 7/11. 

avatar

BAMT

You did mean OpenGL, right?

Sorry, I had to. :P 

avatar

avenger48

OpenCL, OpenGL is for GPU's.  ;)

avatar

CentiZen

I don't think we will see a 10ghz clock rating any time soon, but performance wise a core i7 is probobly as fast or faster as a 10ghz Pentium would have been.

SHEILA: AMD X4 965 3.2GHZ ; 4 GB G.SKILL GAMING RAM ; RADEON HD 5770 1GB

avatar

Zachary K.

Why make it faster? Just add more cores, same thing right? /sarcasm

avatar

Spartacus

good luck getting developers to start writing properly multi-threaded code. It's not easy at all, and nowadays developers don't care about optimization because of how fast CPUs and GPUs  are.

avatar

Danthrax66

I actually think gpu computing (or the idea behind it) will be what the future of computing looks like. In essence a gpu is just hundreds of lower clocked cpu cores so right now nvidia and intel are thinking on the same line with more cores=better performance but the coding just isn't ready. When programmers become more efficient at writing parallel code then we will see a further transformation from high frequency low core count cpu's into high core count low frequency cpu cores.

 

Live, Learn, and Shut the Fuck Up. 

avatar

PawBear

It seems that as long as heat remains an issue. computing power will be determined by material and architecture, not speed.  No, Intel is not going to allow replacement by GPUs, no way, no how, unless they fall asleep at the wheel and have to call on the Chinese for help.

avatar

Antimidas

Of course people are wrong when predicting anything tech related ten years or more into the future.  But if you compare the performance of today,s computers with what the world had anticipated, you will find that things are right on schedule - at least mathematically.

I am a firm believer that GPU's will never fully replace CPU's.  They are completely different technology designed for completely different tasks.  However, with the advent of CUDA and other technologies, GPU's have a prominent position in the future of computing power by being able to assist and augment the CPU with unused GPU cycles.

With the i7 processors, we have effectively eliminated the FSB bottleneck.  Other technologies will come along to reduce physical constraints even further and the technologies will continue to grow and adapt.  The GHz rating may not improve as dramatically as the number of cores or better manufacturing processes, but it all counts in the overall result.

I think it is premature to say Moore's Law is dead.  It is just adapting and evolving in ways that the pundits did not predict ten years ago. 

avatar

Danthrax66

Haven't you heard of graphene? IBM will be producing processors a hell of a lot faster than intel's in a few years. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/07/ibm-demonstrates-100ghz-graphene-transistor/

 

 

Live, Learn, and Shut the Fuck Up. 

avatar

elktondad

Personally I don't think this is that far off.  If you think about the P4 chips of 10 years ago, they were single die and single core.  I'm not an engineer or anything by I think they made that prediction under a "single core" premise.  If you look at the four and six core processors that are running at about 3 GHz you get a processor running over the 10GHz mark.  Just a thought.

avatar

Blaze589

10GHz seems a bit off. Perhaps in 2012 when the die shrinks to 32nm. What ever happened to their research into laser processors? I really want to see a 100Ghz processor before the next decade.

 Will CPUs be eclipsed by GPUs during the next decade?

I have a feeling that GPU parallelism will grow but never eclipse the CPU. I doubt the GPU will turn into a general purpose GPU to compete with a CPU. When laser processors come into play all bets are off.

avatar

Caboose

You really seem to have a thing for "lasers". Sure, "lasers" are cool, but honestly... I'd rather see frickin' shaks, with frickin' "laser beams" attached to their heads!

 

Sorry, I had to...

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

avenger48

Lasers seem to be the new Radium.  Laser hair removal, laser smoking cures, laser this, laser that.  

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.