-
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 to break the 4GHz barrier in 2008
- Thread starter dafloppyone
- Start date
yes they maybe the future but how long before the future? in the mean while a faster single core would b better in 90% of gaming . theyve been on about dual cores for like 4 or 5 years now and theyer still not where theyed like us to be ask any proper gamer and like i said a faster single core would b better end of.
Single core has had it's time, I'm posting from my kitchen machine, it's a single core a64 1.8 at 2.65ghz, no slouch but it can't multi task at all.
Multicore 4tw.
whydosoomanynewuserstothisforumstruggletopostunderstandableposts?
Multicore 4tw.
whydosoomanynewuserstothisforumstruggletopostunderstandableposts?
Associate
dgmug said:
Maybe you could make one which ran at 5GHz?
Have a 1000 stage pipeline, you could have branch prediction taking up half the die and 8KB of cache
At release Prescott had the most advanced branch prediction ever concieved but in the relatively infrequent event of a "miss" it still took several hundered clock cycles to recover and begin to output again. This is the problems with large pipelines needed for high clock speeds on current manufacturing processes, you loose performance. Massive clock frequencies can be done, DSP chips do it - but a multipurpose CPU with ~300million transistors...
If a single core CPU running at huge frequencies could be done, it would be. Silicon costs money, two cores takes twice the area that one core does, if Intel could make a single core CPU running at 4GHz, 5GHz, 7GHz, 10GHz etc, they would. They sell dual cores at the same price they sold single cores for two years ago, even slightly less due to market decline.
Soldato
There's no need for anything better than a Core 2 Duo E6300 in any game currently out. They don't need to bring out uber fast single core chips - there's no need.
I don't undersatnd what there is to complain about. The only thing I can think of is that more games should be multi-threaded by now. They soon will be.
I don't undersatnd what there is to complain about. The only thing I can think of is that more games should be multi-threaded by now. They soon will be.
Soldato
dgmug... 
Your wrong. Completely one hundred percent wrong.
Single cores are dead.
Single cores are no better than dual cores.
There are no advantages of Single cores, not one, nothing!
The fastest single core cpu at doing a single task, think its the FX-57 (this is what a single core cpu can only do.....) is pounded by pretty much all dual cores availble at doing that single task.
And Whilst being quicker, the Dual cores will also be able to do other things.
To summarise. Single core cpus are pointless.....
Your wrong. Completely one hundred percent wrong.
Single cores are dead.
Single cores are no better than dual cores.
There are no advantages of Single cores, not one, nothing!
The fastest single core cpu at doing a single task, think its the FX-57 (this is what a single core cpu can only do.....) is pounded by pretty much all dual cores availble at doing that single task.
And Whilst being quicker, the Dual cores will also be able to do other things.
To summarise. Single core cpus are pointless.....
And what the hell do you know about cpu design?dgmug said:
These are some of the most complicated devices on the planet with 291 million transistors in the core 2 duo. And you think you know better?
If the people who design these things say they can't make em faster then they damn well can't make em faster.
Joe42 said:
well with current tech anyway
theres always new and interesting stuff cropping up
like the living cpu's that were touted a while back stupid idea but they were talking silly speeds, having said that ibm were playing with 100 ghz stuff as well irc
Indeed, its not so much that they can't make em faster, they can just not as much as they used to be able to and not fast enough. The single cores used in multi core cpus will get better and faster (although probably not in clockspeed terms), just not as much as the sort of performance gains we were seeing with single core cpus a few years ago.sormicoft said:well with current tech anyway
theres always new and interesting stuff cropping up
Its not a fad, its the only way to make faster chips. They won't go back to a clockspeed war ever again, 1. Because they can't, thats the reason it stopped and 2. Because for various reasons no-one is using clock speed to measure performance any more.sormicoft said:the dual/multi core thing is just a fad imho they'll all grow bored once we get 32 core chips for everything
then it will be back to the mega/giga/terra hertz wars
i for one cant wait
It certainly did sell, but does it sell now?
When you look at how things like centrino sold, no-one even knows the name of the cpu in their centrino laptop, they just bought it because it said centrino.
Part of the reason for the existance of centrino i think was because laptop cpus have low clockspeeds, and everyone was buying cpus by their clock speed. So they hid the clock speed, and the name of the cpu and marketed it as something else.
These days a lot of people will end up replacing a higher clocked p4 with a lower clocked core 2 duo. Performance will be noticeably better, a lot of people may finally realise that the clock speed doesn't mean much.
I think what we'll see is a cores war with people buying the processor with the most cores, and as a result they will start producing multi core cpus with very slow cores so people buy them, just like they produced relatively slow processors with high clockspeeds because it made people buy them.
When you look at how things like centrino sold, no-one even knows the name of the cpu in their centrino laptop, they just bought it because it said centrino.
Part of the reason for the existance of centrino i think was because laptop cpus have low clockspeeds, and everyone was buying cpus by their clock speed. So they hid the clock speed, and the name of the cpu and marketed it as something else.
These days a lot of people will end up replacing a higher clocked p4 with a lower clocked core 2 duo. Performance will be noticeably better, a lot of people may finally realise that the clock speed doesn't mean much.
I think what we'll see is a cores war with people buying the processor with the most cores, and as a result they will start producing multi core cpus with very slow cores so people buy them, just like they produced relatively slow processors with high clockspeeds because it made people buy them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 1,382
but surely the higher the clockspeed the better, when my system was relativly stable, at 3ghz the system was way faster than 1.8ghz.
Yes, the higher the clock speed the better, but thats only valid when talking about the same architecture.eracer2006 said:
But these days you could easily be replacing a p4 at 3ghz with a core 2 duo at 2.4ghz and the core 2 duo is massively faster.
The more cores the better will probably be the future measurement, and again there will probably come a point where say AMD has a more efficient core so we'll see a repeat of the clockspeed war with an AMD cpu with fewer cores beating an Intel cpu with more cores but the Intel becoming more popular because its percieved as better.
Yes, the higher the clock speed the better, but thats only valid when talking about the same architecture. Not sure what you're referring to?eracer2006 said:
But these days you could easily be replacing a p4 at 3ghz with a core 2 duo at 2.4ghz and the core 2 duo is massively faster.
The more cores the better will probably be the future measurement, and again there will probably come a point where say AMD has a more efficient core so we'll see a repeat of the clockspeed war with an AMD cpu with fewer cores beating an Intel cpu with more cores but the Intel becoming more popular because its percieved as better.
Associate
IBM might be able to get single FINFET's to 100GHz, but not 300million of them...
When the multicores become mainstream compilers will be made to take full advantage of the new CPU's.
Eventually it'll all go asynchronous...
When the multicores become mainstream compilers will be made to take full advantage of the new CPU's.
Eventually it'll all go asynchronous...
Soldato
dgmug said:
I'm not with or against you on that point I'm just confused about the future when we will have octocore cpus or something like that, when are they going to be able to pack the power of a dual core back into a singlecore cpu
games especially can/could be coded to take direct advantage of multiple GPUs... you can split AI code, game logic (which isn't hugely CPU intensive), render processing, sound, etc. off to different cores and probably have it all performing much better than a single core. AI code is especially interesting as its doesn't have to be instep with the rest of the game logic routine to work and with a whole core to itself could do some quite funky stuff that would normally suck too much performance off the CPU.