Super CPU

This is a somehwhat old article on tom's hardware describing a cpu going up to
5ghz.
www.tomshardware.com...
check out the article and i think the vid is there too. How soon do you guys think 5ghz will be achieved without having to cool the cpu to -190 degrees celcius?

Personally I think that speed is a waste. Bus speeds won't be able to handle it.

Multi-core CPU's like the latest UltraSparcs from Sun are the way to go for processing power. Using the clock speed to determine the number crunching ability of a CPU is like using the redline alone of a sportscar to describe how fast it can go.

Dang, I only got a 2.53ghz proccessor....... Gonna wait till 5ghz are old before I get one. But a friend of mine has 3 fans, two on the cases and one on the proc itself. Sure it is one of those new 3.6ghz and stuff, but it cool.

Murphy's law will, and has slightly for a while, eventualyl have to stop. You can build crazy processors, but they'll fry anything around em in an instant (including an egg!). As said, there's very little point to a processor that fast for civilian use. I can understand future military and space programs needing something along those lines, but I'm pretty sure they'll manage to keep the temperature under control. (Space IS cold after all)

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Personally I think that speed is a waste. Bus speeds won't be able to handle it.

Multi-core CPU's like the latest UltraSparcs from Sun are the way to go for processing power. Using the clock speed to determine the number crunching ability of a CPU is like using the redline alone of a sportscar to describe how fast it can go.

Some people woud probably argue that. While I agree than in most computers have super fast single CPU's are a waste - many of the fastest computers use very, very fast CPU's and have busses that can keep up - like the Compaq Alfa's (around 3 Ghz now) and new IBM systems (which use many small, very fast CPU's). Both of these are WAY faster and scale much better than the UltraSPARCs

5 gig, who cares.
They could have saved themselves some trouble by moving to 64 bit a long time ago. You can only flog a single core 32bit CPU for only so long and so fast before computing needs of bloatware overtake it.

I'm glad AMD is doing some thinking and shooting for dual core 64bit.
I believe its the AMD64 X2. They have an Opteron like this and I believe a Quadcore 64bit is on its way as well.

I dont really know much about procesors but wouldnt it be better to get the GHZ speeds to be as high as possible before switching to parallel processing? wont this make parallel processing even faster when we eventually use it in the main stream?

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON


I'm glad AMD is doing some thinking and shooting for dual core 64bit.
I believe its the AMD64 X2. They have an Opteron like this and I believe a Quadcore 64bit is on its way as well.

hating on mac, the mac teaam plus ibm team produced the first 64 bit cpu before IBM... cant forget that

What do you guys mean I don't need a 5ghz? Maybe as of now I don't, but in 50 years when I retire I expect my home PC to be attached to my frontal lobe and be a viable means to control everything from my bank account to my car. I mean, I am sure there are people who thought we didn't need the microprocessor in the first place, but now look at its unrootable stance in today's society.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
As said, there's very little point to a processor that fast for civilian use. I can understand future military and space programs needing something along those lines, but I'm pretty sure they'll manage to keep the temperature under control. (Space IS cold after all)

This reminds me of the quote from the guy at IBM when computers were first being built, "I see a need for maybe six or seven of these in the entire country."

Or Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more then 16 megs of ram.

Build it and they will come. In the future your CPU will operate in gigaflops. Why you ask? Because you cannot stop the creative will of those that will produce such things, and grow rich off of them.

I seriously doubt they will be constructed of the material used today, it is reaching its limits. Still, That will not stop the growth of ever faster and more intricate CPU's.

"But what can they be used for? " you ask. How about total halograms where you are an active player. When the superbowl is played your actually on the field with the players, only in a virtually world. You won't effect the game but talk about having the best seats in the house.

If our tech does not destroy us, it will free us in ways and places that no one on this site can even imagine.

Thats my two nickels on it.

Love and light,

Wupy

Originally posted by ufo3
I dont really know much about procesors but wouldnt it be better to get the GHZ speeds to be as high as possible before switching to parallel processing? wont this make parallel processing even faster when we eventually use it in the main stream?

The processor speeds are high as possible. Check out this link here.

www.pcworld.com...
www.itworld.com...

According to those links, the processor can't go over 3.8 Ghz without
needing more power and it would also produce an excessive amount of heat. They would run into power problems and heating problems.

That's why they are moving to dual core processors seen here.

www.eweek.com...

Oh, and check this out. Some people have overclocked their processor to 6 Ghz. Click on the link below and scroll down to see their computer setup.
I think its cooled by liquid nitrogen.

www.xtremesystems.org...

[edit on 26-4-2005 by cloudx]

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Murphy's law will, and has slightly

You mean 'Moores Law' ?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You mean 'Moores Law' ?

Well THAT'S embarassing. Sheesh. And it took this long?

You'll get there frosty. We just need to quit with the conventional processors and computers and we'll get further. Much further. We're just not at that point yet.

Overclocking++

“Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.”

If theres any truth to the above statement (which can be found all over the net via a google search for 'longhorn specs') then a 5ghz processor will indeed be necessary and almost a requirement to milk the new MS cash-cow properly. Basically everything in the hardware market has to keep getting more powerful to keep up with the applications. Database machines alone need massive processors, a huge bus, lots of cache, and enough ram to choke a horse...especially if your running a large Oracle db

Originally posted by alternateheaven
“Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.”

All that and I bet a 2.5GHz Linux box will still outperform it!

Why does Microsoft want me to have an 802.11g for running an OS? That's a scary thought, the Evil Empire wanting everyone to have wireless interfaces. What are they planning?

I can see the 2GB RAM, that way they can load more dll's into it!

Murphy's Law might apply, too
I remember using liquid cooling via Mountain Dew cans and fishtank pumps just to get 66MHz. I'm sure sooomeone will figure out a way to economically make these things run nice and chill.
Your Windows machine will soon be crashing faster than ever before!

Originally posted by cloudx

Originally posted by ufo3
I dont really know much about procesors but wouldnt it be better to get the GHZ speeds to be as high as possible before switching to parallel processing? wont this make parallel processing even faster when we eventually use it in the main stream?

The processor speeds are high as possible. Check out this link here.

www.pcworld.com...
www.itworld.com...

According to those links, the processor can't go over 3.8 Ghz without
needing more power and it would also produce an excessive amount of heat. They would run into power problems and heating problems.

That's why they are moving to dual core processors seen here.

www.eweek.com...

Oh, and check this out. Some people have overclocked their processor to 6 Ghz. Click on the link below and scroll down to see their computer setup.
I think its cooled by liquid nitrogen.

www.xtremesystems.org...

[edit on 26-4-2005 by cloudx]

I have heard that new materials can much improve improve the heat situation, why cant we switch to better more expensive (initially) materials in order to boost speed. Also it may be feasible to build an enclosed system for the processer so that it is not to dangerous, esp with the liquid nitrogen

Originally posted by apc

I remember using liquid cooling via Mountain Dew cans and fishtank pumps just to get 66MHz. I'm sure sooomeone will figure out a way to economically make these things run nice and chill.

Ahh, those were the days. Two solder jumpers and a tub of dry ice just to play Dos based Hexen........

Hahaha yes!
And if you got your virtual mathcopro working right it meant you were all kinds of leet!
Pheer my VME bus. Pheer it.

“Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz...

The purpose of that statement is twofold.

1) Attempt to force people to buy new machines. Microsoft deals very well with PC manufacturers. The manufacturers ship with Windows products, MS encourages new purchases, everyone smiles.

2) An excuse for MS Bloatware. Why does your system keep crashing? Oh cuz you don't have the 17 gig of RAM we recommend. Sorry, obviously your fault, not ours.