Is 3 GHZ the speed barrier?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by ToyalP2, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. ToyalP2

    ToyalP2 Guest

    For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    Any news?
     
    ToyalP2, Aug 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ToyalP2

    WhzzKdd Guest

    "ToyalP2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    > CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    > Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    > making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    > Any news?



    Why would you need a 4GHz processor, when you can get one with two 2GHz (or
    more) cores?
     
    WhzzKdd, Aug 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. WhzzKdd wrote:
    > "ToyalP2" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    >> CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    >> Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    >> making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    >> Any news?

    >
    >
    > Why would you need a 4GHz processor, when you can get one with two 2GHz (or
    > more) cores?


    For those applications that don't utilize more than one core. BTW,
    wonder why the OP left out AMD's dual core processors? I've had one for
    going on two years now.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 26, 2007
    #3
  4. ToyalP2

    Guest

    ToyalP2 <> wrote:

    >For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    >CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    >Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    >making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    >Any news?


    3 GHZ is just about it, any higher and heat becomes issue.


    --

    Mystery trader makes huge bets market will crash
    by over 30% in September.
    www.financialnews-us.com/?page=ushome&contentid=2448565379
     
    , Aug 26, 2007
    #4
  5. wrote:
    > ToyalP2 <> wrote:
    >
    >> For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    >> CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    >> Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    >> making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    >> Any news?

    >
    > 3 GHZ is just about it, any higher and heat becomes issue.


    I remember going to Comdex one year and 200MHz was considered the
    outside edge of what a processor could do due to heat issues. Someone
    had just invented not just a water cooled, but a refrigerated chip
    cooler that was said to make it possible to run one of those hotrods for
    over a half hour without it melting.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 26, 2007
    #5
  6. ToyalP2

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > 3 GHZ is just about it, any higher and heat becomes issue.


    That sounds silly, in a way.
    There was a time very recently that people said the exact same thing
    about the P3 and the P4 at about 500 Mhz or so.
     
    Mitch, Aug 26, 2007
    #6
  7. ToyalP2

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, ToyalP2
    <> wrote:

    > For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    > CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    > Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    > making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.


    AMD isn't the only company making a 64 bit processor -- for example,
    Intel's and IBM's and Sun's different models of 64-bit processors. I
    don't even know how many there are.

    Also, of course, clock speed has been growing for a long time. A
    slowing of growth is hardly any reason to decide there is a ceiling,
    let alone that we've already found it!
     
    Mitch, Aug 26, 2007
    #7
  8. ToyalP2

    Fred Guest

    ToyalP2 wrote:
    > For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    > CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    > Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    > making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.
    > Any news?


    What's important is the average number of instructions processed per cycle.
    Intel are moving to 45nm technology in the near future so there should be
    room for more power savings. They are also rumoured to be introducing a cpu
    technology that moves the memory controller on-die like AMD do.
    That should help with memory access bottle-neck so the average number of
    instructions processed per cycle should further improve.
    They are also rumoured to be putting a graphics controller on-die for some
    chips in the future.
    I would speculate that one day they will introduce a chipset spec designed
    for water cooling so that clock frequency can be increased more.
     
    Fred, Aug 26, 2007
    #8
  9. ToyalP2

    nobody > Guest

    Mitch wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> 3 GHZ is just about it, any higher and heat becomes issue.

    >
    > That sounds silly, in a way.
    > There was a time very recently that people said the exact same thing
    > about the P3 and the P4 at about 500 Mhz or so.


    Tain't silly.

    Heat was a problem then, heat is a problem now. Overclockers go to great
    lengths to dissipate heat, including water cooling and outright
    refrigerators.


    Want hot? try an old Pentium 60. I ran at 5 volts. Pentium 90's ran at
    3.3 volts ans were cool enough to put in laptops.
     
    nobody >, Aug 26, 2007
    #9
  10. ToyalP2

    Guest

    Mitch <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> 3 GHZ is just about it, any higher and heat becomes issue.


    >That sounds silly, in a way.
    >There was a time very recently that people said the exact same thing
    >about the P3 and the P4 at about 500 Mhz or so.


    I used to have a link showing that around 3 GHZ was the limit due to
    heat restrictions, had to do with the size of cpu tracings - I think
    at 0.18-microns now.





    --

    Miss Teen South Carolina tries to say something.
    http://www.maniacworld.com/what-is-she-talking-about.html

    - Our judges say... that's all right, they roll big joints too!
     
    , Aug 26, 2007
    #10
  11. ToyalP2

    Plato Guest

    ToyalP2 wrote:
    >
    > For the last year or so I have not seen Intel or AMD to come up with a
    > CPU faster than 3.2 GHZ or so.
    > Intel made the dual core and AMD the 64 bit but is not the same as
    > making a let's say 4GHZ CPU.


    Just buy the fastest processor that you can afford for best results in
    the future...





    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Aug 28, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian H¹©

    Re: 2.4 GHz and 2.6 GHz, does 2.6 go that much faster??

    Brian H¹©, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    589
    Brian H¹©
    Jul 6, 2003
  2. DaveG
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    801
    DaveG
    Jul 6, 2003
  3. ztroll
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    584
    ztroll
    Jul 6, 2003
  4. philo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    580
    philo
    Jul 6, 2003
  5. Barry OGrady

    Pentium 4 / 3 Ghz CPU type Sl6wk runs at 2 Ghz

    Barry OGrady, Jul 13, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    2,176
    Barry OGrady
    Jul 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page