3 ms·
Or maybe Intel really has hit a thermal limit, rather than hatching a conspiracy against consumers? (Not saying 10+GHz is necessarily impossible, just that it'
by jmgrosen 11y ago
Or maybe Intel really has hit a thermal limit, rather than hatching a conspiracy against consumers?
(Not saying 10+GHz is necessarily impossible, just that it's more likely hitting it is hard than Intel doesn't want to innovate there for some reason.)
- frik 11y agoAMD sells CPUs with 4.2+ GHz that can be easily overclocked (like Intel CPUs from 15+ years ago). We are now at 12nm whereas we had >90nm years ago. Increasing the clock speed is certainly possible, but always a tradeoff. We can always put the CPU in a specific oil like the Cray2. If x86/64 is the limiting factor, they could release an incompatible CPU architecture (like the failed Itanium or like ARM). A lot of the die space on current CPUs is internal memory (L1, L2). It's pretty easy to draw the 'conspiracy' card.
- PeCaN 11y agoAMD's CPUs do many fewer instructions per cycle as Haswell (in some cases half as many), not to mention Skylake. You can't really compare GHz between them. And releasing a new architecture is not exactly feasible if they want to stay in the server, workstation, and desktop markets. That idea behind Itanium actually was to get faster by dropping x86_64, and we see how poorly it worked out.