• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel predicts 10GHz chips by 2011

early 2001: 1 GHz
mid 2002: 2 GHz
early 2004: 4 GHz
mid 2005: 8 GHz
early 2007: 16 GHz
mid 2008: 32 GHz
early 2010: 64 GHz
mid 2011: 128 GHz
Click to expand...

Sorry What??? thats not how it works.
 
Those comments just go to show what waste of time most "opinions" on the internet are. One thing is for sure you have no idea what you or anyone else will be doing in 10 years time, that's what keeps life interesting ;)
 
The comments from 2006-2010 are pretty funny too, "it would make too much heat" "its not possible" "silly intel", its not like they knew any of that before it actually came to pass with preshott and tejas's cancellation :p
 
Troezar said:
Those comments just go to show what waste of time most "opinions" on the internet are. One thing is for sure you have no idea what you or anyone else will be doing in 10 years time, that's what keeps life interesting ;)
Click to expand...

we will be doing pretty much the same at the same speed, only it will look a bit nicer... thats about it... go back 10 years.. PC's still took about the same time to boot, now things just look a bit nicer..

either that or ww3 would ahve broken out and we will have nothing...
 
To be fair, at the time of writing, they didn't understand multi-core processors and how single silicon cores couldn't really go beyond 3GHz because of resistance and overheating.

With the use of graphane they've already got 30GHz in a single core (with 100GHz to 1THz possible), and expect it to be commercial by 2015-2020. Definitely the way forward. A single core that is ridiculously more powerful than a current 980X!

edit: The way forward with current-ish technology anyway. I'm not talking quantum, light, DNA or other forms of processing.
 
Last edited:
Actually, i spoke to an Intel engineer, 10ghz is possible, but the TDP would be so high and thermodynamics would be difficult to control.
 
we've already been down this road, efficiency is more important than raw clock speed, look at the 2Ghz C2D that stuffed 3.2+Ghz Pentium Ds with no trouble, i for one doubt we'll see such high clocked processors anytime soon. more likely the usual minor improvements, focused on doing more for less, thats gotta be the way forward surely :rolleyes:
 
Ryan-3 said:
not only that, but they've just gave out 5 experimental copies of their 48CORE CPU! Crazy :)
Click to expand...

Sure, the hardware is available for this, but developers just aren't producing multi-threaded capable software. Or if it is multi-threaded, it's not done very well. Each one of those cores won't be the type of core you'll find in an i7 processor, but something a few years old. I think the Intel Larrabee (before it was disbanded) was going to have a bunch of Pentium 4 cores. These processors would only really benefit in server farms at the moment, where the number crunching is multi-threaded and/or distributed across many servers.
 
Excellent news. If intel keep their promise sandy bridge should be one hell of a treat ;) on a serious note, we've all witnissed that its not necessarily clock speed that denotes the efficiency of a chip, but the architecture of the chip itself. I can't see stock clocks hitting (or needing) 4GHz any time soon.
 
In a manner of speaking we've hit that already.

4 x 4 ghz of potential processing power = 16ghz
(4ghz overclocks are very common and very easy to attain)

Although we don't have 10ghz chips easily availible right now, if you look at it like that, we've already surpassed it.

Just my 2 cents anyway :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom