4 ms·

Will I ever be able to buy a 10Ghz CPU? Someone please comfort me.

jfoutz 18y ago
No, i don't think so. there are 10ghz transistors, but the're gallium arsenide rather than silicon. I'm going to pretend that i know (i don't), if you try to go much faster than 5ghz with silicon you have to use smaller electron bundles -- lower votage -- because the chips will melt if the voltage is upped to much. because the signal is less clear, undetected/uncorrected errors start happening all the time. remember, at 10ghz 1 in a billion mistakes is terrifying. hugs
- technoguyrob 18y ago
  And with the recent discovery that graphene nanoribbons may be able to replace silicon as the semiconductor in processors at least one researcher predicts that clock speeds in the terahertz range may be possible.[1] Has anyone ever heard of this or have enough technical background to expound? I am really curious. Either way, I suppose it is far off, certainly not any time soon. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_speed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_speed
- Retric 18y ago
  I thought some of the ALU's where double pumped in p4 and newer cpu's. If that's the case we are already running some part's of the CPU at 3.7 * 2 = 7.2Ghz. Edit: Yea, the integer ALU's operate at twice clock speed. I think the move to 64bit CPU's slowed down the clock speed race as did adding more cores and insane amounts of L2 cache due to heat issues. As a side note when I picked up my quad core CPU at 2.4 GHz it crushed my old 1.8Ghz 32bit cpu so I think they are making some wise tadeoffs due to system buss limitations. Plus the old P4's seemed to trade off a lot of effective for pure clock speed. So after we get back on track we might see a new clock speed race when we have 8 - 32 cores.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    You put the carriage in front of the horse: we're moving to multiple cores because we can't increase the clock speed. The number of transistors we can fit on a chip is still following Moore's Law, we're just using them in a different way. We were squeezing more and more performance out of single cores by lengthening the instruction pipeline, which increased the amount of instruction parallelism processor's could exploit at runtime. The difficulty is that as this pipeline is increased, it takes longer to send information across it. As we decrease cycle time (same as increasing the clock speed), it becomes harder and harder to communicate from one end of the pipeline to the other in a single clock cycle.

No, i don't think so. there are 10ghz transistors, but the're gallium arsenide rather than silicon. I'm going to pretend that i know (i don't), if you try to go much faster than 5ghz with silicon you have to use smaller electron bundles -- lower votage -- because the chips will melt if the voltage is upped to much. because the signal is less clear, undetected/uncorrected errors start happening all the time. remember, at 10ghz 1 in a billion mistakes is terrifying. hugs

technoguyrob 18y ago
And with the recent discovery that graphene nanoribbons may be able to replace silicon as the semiconductor in processors at least one researcher predicts that clock speeds in the terahertz range may be possible.[1] Has anyone ever heard of this or have enough technical background to expound? I am really curious. Either way, I suppose it is far off, certainly not any time soon. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_speed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_speed
Retric 18y ago
I thought some of the ALU's where double pumped in p4 and newer cpu's. If that's the case we are already running some part's of the CPU at 3.7 * 2 = 7.2Ghz. Edit: Yea, the integer ALU's operate at twice clock speed. I think the move to 64bit CPU's slowed down the clock speed race as did adding more cores and insane amounts of L2 cache due to heat issues. As a side note when I picked up my quad core CPU at 2.4 GHz it crushed my old 1.8Ghz 32bit cpu so I think they are making some wise tadeoffs due to system buss limitations. Plus the old P4's seemed to trade off a lot of effective for pure clock speed. So after we get back on track we might see a new clock speed race when we have 8 - 32 cores.
- scott_s 18y ago
  You put the carriage in front of the horse: we're moving to multiple cores because we can't increase the clock speed. The number of transistors we can fit on a chip is still following Moore's Law, we're just using them in a different way. We were squeezing more and more performance out of single cores by lengthening the instruction pipeline, which increased the amount of instruction parallelism processor's could exploit at runtime. The difficulty is that as this pipeline is increased, it takes longer to send information across it. As we decrease cycle time (same as increasing the clock speed), it becomes harder and harder to communicate from one end of the pipeline to the other in a single clock cycle.