4 ms·
your comment makes me realize I have not thought about GHz for a long time. I think we just don't have the demand for high clock speed anymore so they didn't pu
by nsonha 5y ago
your comment makes me realize I have not thought about GHz for a long time. I think we just don't have the demand for high clock speed anymore so they didn't push for it?
I'm not a hardware guy but I remember reading that added cores are better suited for mobile computing (thermal and energy wise) than clock speed.
- joe_guy 5y agoI believe the goal od netburst architrture was to brute force beat its inefficencies with clock. > With this microarchitecture, Intel looked to attain clock speeds of 10 GHz,[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst_(microarchitecture) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst_(microarchitecture)
- zamadatix 5y agoCPU wattage is (approximately) scalingConstant * voltage^2 * Frequency + staticPower. The increase in frequency not only increases the power draw linearly but requires a higher voltage which increases the power draw quadratically. Doubling the frequency may quadruple the power requirements so if you can find ways to increase performance per clock instead it'll be preferred as long as those take less than 4x the power. If that means multiple low powered cores great, if that means many specialized instructions that do complex things efficiently (aes, simd, whatever) great. If that means just making existing instructions faster that's fine too. Whatever doesn't break the power budget as there is only so much power you can dissipate without exotic cooling solutions.