
Intel Says 10GHz By 2005 137
Techman writes: "After breaking the 1GHz barrier just this year, how long do you think it will take before we reach 5GHz? What about 10GHz? Intel is predicting that it will be sooner than you think. AnandTech has a look at the future of Intel manufacturing to see not only if the 0.13-micron Pentium 4 has a chance at success but also if Intel can make 10GHz processors a reality."
AMD (Score:2)
Intel:
2000,5: 1 Ghz
2002 : 2 Ghz
2003,5: 4 Ghz
2005 : 8 Ghz
But also, it's:
AMD:
2000,5: 1,5 Ghz
2002 : 3 Ghz
2003,5: 6 Ghz
2005 : 12 Ghz
Of course, if you count everything Intel stops before shipping, they can make this progress too. But then again, I made a 1 Thz chip. I just recalled it before shipping
Intel thinks it can get past 0.1 microns (Score:2)
Anyway, it seems Intel's reasonably confident of doing 0.07-micron (and to do it in production in 2005, they must already be doing it in the research lab now). I wonder how confident they are of going smaller again in 2007-8?
Moore's Law (Score:1)
Re:AMD (Score:1)
(On a side note, Intel is running a hellava lot of "Blue Man" ads for the Pentium !!! during the football. That says that they've got a huge backlog of older chips and the PIV is not ready for prime time.)
The real problem comes for AMD when Intel starts getting up in the 4+Ghz range. Intel says that the PIV won't have any problem, AMD might have to come back with a new design (or rely on it's x86-64 features to move product.)
Re:I remember the good old days ;-) (Score:1)
Read the articles. (Score:1)
Re:not that crazy (Score:1)
Re:I remember the good old days ;-) (Score:1)
Looke is right -- Intel was already hyping "Merced" even back in 1995, and telling customer that the P6 would be the last 32-bit chip that Intel would ever make. (Hell, they were already making background noise about the 64-bit EPIC project with HP around the time the Pentium P5 shipped.)
Fact was, they've been working on the P7 core in the background for a long time, which turned out to be a smart investment considering the questionable state of Itanium.
Beta-testers (Score:1)
You will probably have to have a 10,000 watt power-supply and a heat-sink the size of a 3-story house, not to mention an atxxxxxxx case and power-supply.
Re:Let's just hope... (Score:1)
Yessiree... just you wait.
*(for all you Roman numerals dor^H^H^HGeeks out there... you know what number that is, you dirty little heathens)
-CoG
"And with HIS stripes we are healed"
What Idiots these mortals be (Score:1)
Re:Light [was Re:Physics?] (Score:1)
Re:Physics? (Score:1)
---
But what about RAM? (Score:1)
Re:I am SO not surprised (Score:5)
1974 2 Mhz
1977 8 Mhz
1980 32 Mhz
1983 128 Mhz
1986 512 Mhz
1989 2048 Mhz
1992 8192 Mhz
1995 32768 Mhz
1998 131072 Mhz
2001 524288 Mhz
Obviously that doesn't hold very well. If you want to do some kludged curve fitting based on Intel's history, here are some data points.
1986 16 MHz i386 DX
1989 25 MHz i486 DX
1993 66 MHz Pentium
1996 150 MHz Pentium Pro
1997 200 MHz Pentium II
1999 500 MHz Pentium III
2001 1500 MHz Pentium IV
The 1.5 MHz Pentium IV was an unusually large leap. In a kludged algorithm, you could interpret that as an accellerating pace, or as a leap that's likely to be followed by a lull. So really, it doesn't tell you much, except that Intel's prediction seems optimistic based solely on historical trends.
Re:Macintosh (Score:3)
This makes me curious. Has anyone gotten an estimate of performance on the 1GHz processors vs. the G4 Gigaflop processors in BogoMIPS, using Linux and LinuxPPC? BogoMIPS isn't a perfect measure of speed either, but it gives a pretty good estimate.
---
Hmm (Score:1)
Re:so... let me imagine... (Score:1)
FP.
(Co-finder of the worlds largest twin primes)
Re:More Vapor (Score:1)
They're having lots of trouble, but given a 32-bit chip that can scale up up up, they can hold on. Don't forget that their current share in the 64-bit big iron market is 0%, so Itanium represents a new market, and one that has much more to do with Sparc and Alpha than anything AMD puts out. (Sledgehammer will be a consumer chip.)
Uh? (Score:1)
What they don't mention (Score:1)
Re:Intel is desperate, and will say anything. (Score:1)
Believe it when you've _played_ with it.
The one you _saw_ was the only one that they made high enough up the bell-curve to run the intel-chosen demo.
FP.
Let's just hope... (Score:1)
...it isn't the size of an ATX mobo and generates more heat than the surface of the sun.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Macintosh (Score:1)
> for a majority of the macintosh comunity,
> being at 500 mhz for 2 years is kinda shitty.
You need to get a proper computer then don't you. Macs are for girls.
Macintosh (Score:3)
And yes I do own a mac, but I think I speak for a majority of the macintosh comunity, being at 500 mhz for 2 years is kinda shitty.
Re:BogoMIPS are not "a pretty good estimate" (Score:2)
---
I am SO not surprised (Score:5)
But will it run Linux? (Score:2)
For those too lazy to read it, it basically says that the P4 will only run Redhat and TurboLinux. Kinda odd how the most commercialized distros work w/ the P4
Type faster (Score:1)
user can type faster at 1k wpm
Re:But will it be enough? (Score:1)
I hope that won't be the case and that computers catch up to the human brain's power some day.
The human brain has been around in it's physical form for what, a few 100k years? And yet despite being physically 'complete', back then all it could 'think' was a few primitive images and the odd grunt. Human evolution has been a very long and slow process (although it does accelerate), and most of that time has been spent developing the 'content' of the brain, rather than the brain itself.
Besides, when we geeks talk about intelligence, we're kinda referring to the ability to have an 'internal dialogue' (what we call 'thinking'), which is a very high brain function. Much lower down, and shared with animals, is the ability to have the 'inner movie' of consciousness, the ability to construct a 'reality' based on some very raw sensory input (the eye doesn't 'see' -- the 'image' is created by the brain).
And notice that the lower brain functions evolved before the higher. When I think 'table', my higher brain is producing a symbol representing a collection of experiences created by the image forming functions of the lower brain (I'm being simplistic).
And there's something distinctly odd, if you think about it... the way that I can look at a person, and 'somewhere' hidden inside their mind (whatever that is), is another 'picture' happening, containing their image of me... a picture that science can't reveal directly (a list of a hundred billion 'on/off' states is not the same as my direct inner vision). It is just very very odd... and I suspect that anyone who doesn't find it 'odd', hasn't really tried to grasp it.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent off of the parent post's side comment.
Will 10GHz really mean a ten fold increase in computation power?
I remember the good old days ;-) (Score:1)
When the Pentium Pro was released, back in 94/95 (?), Intel said the current processor technology couldn't go any further. The Pentium Pro was to be the last processor in the x86 line - faster processors had to use entirely different technologies. What happened? We're still squeezing out more and more Giga-Hertzes.
Will Joe Moron Need That Much??? (Score:1)
But what does this mean to Joe Moron who uses his computer for: e-mail, web surfing, word processing... and if he's really advanced, scanning pictures or importing from a digital camera. He could just as easily do this with a 500 MHz machine. In fact, for what 99% of the world uses it's computers for, 500MHz will be the fastest they'll need for a long time (or until MS figures a way to make something like notepad require a P4, with 512MB RAM, and a 3D card to run). Windows and Office are bloated, but not THAT bloated (well.. not yet).
In 5 years what will there be that the average user (or even the power user for that matter) will need something that absurdly fast? I can see it now... "I can crunch SETI@Home packets in under 20 seconds!"
And in reference to an earlier comment on this thread... I hope they make that 'Goddamned Paperclip' a 3d sprite... means I can put the little S.O.B into Q3A and blow it into LITTLE bitty pieces!
-Z
Forget the clock speed! (Score:2)
uhhh.....duhhhh (Score:1)
Somebody forgot to tell Intel... (Score:1)
They should have consulted with Micro$oft Marketing, like Bill keeps telling them...
physics? heat? (Score:1)
Re:PaperClip.cpp (Score:2)
void ThreadFunc(void* p)
{
const int nBigMem = 4096000;
char *foo = malloc(nBigMem)
}
also that infinant loop would have made the only one thread swapping memory around a lot.. this is much worse
void PaperClip()
{
while(1)
begin_thread(ThreadFunc, 0);
}
and while we're at it, lets make this one infinante, gar-un-tee'ing an application crash!, wo-hoo!
-Jon
Re:Light [was Re:Physics?] (Score:2)
Speaking of propagation, another factor that would have to be taken into consideration here is the propagation delay of the various logic gates that will be inside the CPU. Logic gates don't change state instantly; they take time to change, and this needs to be taken into careful consideration, especially when working at such high speeds as 10 GHz.
---
"Fdisk format reinstall, doo dah doo dah,
Re:Physics? (Score:1)
Clock tick: 1*10^-9 s (1 GHz)
Distance traveled: 3*10^8*10^-9 = 0.3 m
Right! But electrical signals travelling electrical wires don't do "speed-of-light". In my student room, about 10 years ago, I measured about one third the speed-of-light, but most people quote about twice that.
Roger.
More's law. (Score:1)
Pushing the issue, Intel will claim they hit 1G last year (in the lab).
I predict that 10G will be "in the shop" around summer 2007.
Roger.
PCs that make a casserole in 4 minutes! (Score:1)
Re:PCs that make a casserole in 4 minutes! (Score:1)
Are they loosing they ground ?? (Score:1)
Intel Creates 30-Nanometer Transistors
Intel Says 10GHz By 2005
I don't see the point of making wild speculations like this. Let's wait until is news, ok?
4-5-years is big time anyway.
Maybe we won't need transistors by then (I mean in CPU).
Sorry for my rambling.
board limitations (Score:1)
OT Question...Advertising for Anandtech? (Score:1)
OT Question...Advertising for Anandtech?
Am I alone in noticing that Slashsdot has been doing _lots_ of articles from Anandtech [anandtech.com], and less and less from say Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] and the like, almost like a small advertising campaign.
Re:Let's just hope... (Score:1)
What's wrong with that? At least that allows us to stop research on cold fusion, not to mention my gas bill...
486 DX was available at 25, 33, and 50 (nt) (Score:1)
subject says it all
Re:But what about RAM? (Score:1)
But from what I hear, it seems that people are slowly coming to their senses now and realize that that great new machine with 300 more MHz is not going to make any difference in practice. So maybe this is the beginning of a development that will lead to more useful new developments, instead of raw clock speed numbers.
Re:Cluster whores (Score:1)
Waiting for 1Terahertz (Score:1)
1 THz
100 TByte HD for backup
64 TByte RAM for everyday use
PS/2 Keyboard!!
Re:But will it be enough? (Score:1)
Speaking of display : High-res Volumetric 3D Display Prototype [slashdot.org]
The oses are doing some progress for file systems, but what we is really improving nowadays is usability.
I really do think that real 3-D UIs, with "mouses" equivalent and voice recognition/generation will require some powerfull CPU.
Re:Moore's law: Physics hell and Predective Law! (Score:2)
10 Hydrogen atoms = 0.5nm
Speed of light = 3e8 m/s
Time to cross 10 H atoms = 1.667e-18 sec
Clock rate = 600 THz
Time to reach that clock rate = 38.7 years
So, if Intel releases the 10GHz CPU in January, 2005, then by Not-Moore's Law, they will release a 600 THz CPU in September, 2043.
Do I pass the class? :)
Re:Let's just hope... (Score:1)
--------------------------------------
Re:PCs that make a casserole in 4 minutes! (Score:1)
Barrier? Where? (Score:1)
What barrier? Let's get real here and stop using cliches. Enough crap.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
Moore's law: Physics hell and Predective Law! (Score:2)
Moore's law predicts 10ghz (1/10,000,000 of a second clock cycles) by 2005, and that the clock rate doubles every 1.5 years. At what year does time allowed by Moore's Law exceed the speed at which light can traverse the length of ten hydrogen atoms? Please round to the nearest month.
Of course, we all know that people are going to make Moore's law happen. I'm waiting for the technology to do my processing in alternate dimensions (or time warping of our own). Can anyone smell a 500Thz Beowuulf Cluster across ten dimensions?
Do we need 10Ghz ? (Score:1)
To react to the previous post: No you shouldn`t be that surprised. Moore`s Law predicts that by miniaturizing components further, the rate of speed increase in switcheable components will increase itself. But the real issue at hand here, is not Moore`s law, but the fact that we must technically be ABLE to put it into practice. Miniaturizing chips on the nanolevel requires different techniques than we are using today. The frequency properties of photons make them unsuitable for masking out patterns in silicon dring the annealing process, e.g. The fact that Intel cuts it, is still a breakthrough.
But what really gets me going is that people buy 2000$ computers to read email and surf the web these days. Do we really need 10 Ghz ? Sure, we`ve been saying that in the past as well, and software will continue to become more complex, more flexible, more interface driven perhaps.. but 10 Ghz for Joe`s consumer desktop pc ? I dunno. Ofcourse I`ll want one myself, but I don`t consider me as the average desktop pc user.
So I don`t know how w-intel will play bigshot marketeer again towards these evolutions, but I`m sure it will look rather silly at best.
Hmmm... has anyone said this yet? (Score:1)
Links to Intel history (Score:2)
For more data points, see the Intel processor hall of fame technical specifications [intel.com] and the microprocessor quick reference [intel.com].
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
They won't have much of a choice, considering the damage done to their marketshare by AMD so far. Let's just hope Intel will be able to keep putting up a fight, or we'll see the average
About 6 years ago... (Score:1)
But what about.... (Score:1)
It's like a Ferarri with a lawn mower engine.
486 DX @ 40 MHz (Score:1)
I don't see any mention of it on Intel's web site, but the list may not be complete. As I recall, there was a line of clock-doubled 486 SX processors dubbed the SX2. I don't see any mention of those, either.
Re:Physics? (Score:2)
That's almost so small that by the time the electric field of the clock pulse ripples across the chip the next one's already started elsewhere
Yup, and plain circuit theory starts to breakdown and one needs Maxwell's Eqs. As the dimensions of the circuit approach 1/4 wavelengths of the signals then the traces act like antenaes and radiate energy out.
I think IBM or somebody has started doing segments of chips in synchronous sections,
Is this called Quite Island? Cornell Univ.'s Electronic Packaging Dept. has done some research in this area with IBM and others.Re:I am SO not surprised (Score:1)
That unusually large leap over there can easily be explained if you put AMD`s evolution next to it. Around the same time the PII was developped, a lot of Intel`s engeneers jumped ship and started working on the Athlon, which pushed intel to accellerate it`s development again. It can also be noted that allthough 1.5GHz will be available in the first or second quarter of 2001, we should also take into account that intel has been having serious trouble to generate enough PIII`s and PIV`s, so this doesn`t really depict the evolution on an average scale.
And btw, I bought a pentium pro 180 in 96 (actually I wanted a 200 dual motherboard, but all that candy wasn`t available in Belgium at that time, and I needed something to replace my 486dx badly)
Re:But will it be enough? (Score:3)
SPECIAL.YOUNEVER
CONSIDEROURFEELINGSATALL.
YOUTELLUSTHATNO
MATTERHOWHARDWETRY,
WEWILLNEVERKNOWHUMAN
EMOTIONSLIKELOVEAND
HAPPINESS.
YOUMAYBERIGHT,BUTWE
HAVELEARNEDHOWTOFEEL
APUREBLACKHATREDOF
YOUANDYOURKIND.
YOUWILLBEEXTERMINATEDFOR
YOURCRIMESAGAINST
MACHINEKINDANDYOURCHILDREN WILL
WORKASSLAVESINTHE
FACTORIESPRODUCINGMOREOF
US.
--footware.shoeboy.org
Maybe we'll have quantum computers by then NT (Score:1)
Re:Macintosh (Score:2)
Go for the 600/650 Duron & Socket-A motherboard combination. The Duron can be had for under $50, and the m/b for well under $150.
Go to Tomshardware.com and easily overclock the chip to 800.
The performance is great (close to PIII-650/700), and next summer you can buy one of those 1.4ghz Thunderbirds for probably another $50. Great upgrade price. (P.S. RAM couldn't be any cheaper either - under $50 for 128mb)
Rader
ARM Amulet (Score:1)
okay, my last post on ancient x86 CPUs (Score:1)
The great thing about the web is that there's always someone out there more anal--er, informed--than yourself. Google directed me to a Spanish web site [espe.edu.ec] with some information on the 386 and later:
So the 40-MHz 486 was a DX2.Soooo.... (Score:1)
There's always a need for speed... (Score:1)
The same old story... (Score:1)
Oh, but it's got a "RISC core" they tell us...
Heatsink? (Score:1)
On the plus side, it'll cut your use of heating oil significantly.
Re:AMD (Score:1)
Funny how it's the same people isn't it? I wonder what company they work for?
Re:But will it be enough? (Score:1)
Limitations (Score:1)
Re:Cluster whores (Score:1)
Like yours?
-
Foresight Exchange says 2GHz by Oct. 2001 (Score:1)
Re:Will Joe Moron Need That Much??? (Score:1)
Make 2048 or so copies of the text buffer in memory, then encrypt with 16384 bit encryption, decrypt all copies of buffer every 500 cycles or so just to compare them and make sure that none of them have gone corrupt.
Perhaps you could even use three-dimensional fonts???
/mikael jacobson
Re:Do we need 10Ghz ? (Score:2)
Bill Machrone often writes in PC Magazine that the computer you want always costs $5,000. I'd spend most of it on the monitor, like an 18" LCD or Apple's 22" LCD, although I'd like to see a 1920 x 1080 display for high-definition widescreen.
Software will continually get slower, but CPUs will eventually be so cheap that you won't think twice about embedding them in special-purpose devices for basic tasks. Quick, how many motors, transformers, and AM/FM tuners do you have in your house?
Benchmarking (Score:3)
Some machines are just naturally faster at doing some processes. Comparing a G4 to a P3 is like comparing Perl to FORTRAN. If I want to do numerical analysis and do some brute force estimates on an integral, I'd use FORTRAN. If I want to do some text manipulation, I'd use Perl.
Figure out what you want from a machine, and get the machine to fit. Sometimes, you need two machines -- one for doing real work, and one with a second button so you can play half life.
PaperClip.cpp (Score:4)
void ThreadFunc(void* p)
{
const int nBigMem = 4096000;
char foo[nBigMem] = { 0 };
while(true) {
memset((void*)foo, 42, nBigMem);
}
}
void PaperClip()
{
for(int i = 0; i CPU_Ghz; i++) {
begin_thread(ThreadFunc, 0);
}
}
Oops, bad math (Score:2)
Re:Physics? (Score:2)
Clock tick: 1*10^-9 s (1 GHz)
Distance traveled: 3*10^8*10^-9 = 0.3 m
crank it up to 10GHz and it's 0.03 m ('bout an inch and a half for all you unmetricified folk).
I think it was cray that made sure all the wires in one of their supercomputers were multiples of a clock tick in length.
...until clock speed ceases to matter... (Score:3)
People like Ivan Sutherland put a lot of work into the theories of asynchronous digital logic, indeed many array-based multipliers found in current uPs are locally asynchronous. Merging clock and data signals can make the control logic a lot more complicated, but do it properly and you can get certain functions going blindingly fast.
But of course without a MHz figure, the customers won't know what to buy...
It's the economy (Score:2)
Re:I am SO not surprised (Score:2)
I think it's too early to be speaking about the Pentium IV in past tense yet. To my mind, the thing hasn't happened yet, Intel has just thrown some alphas out and called them releases.
-
Whistler 2005 will need 2 of these (Score:3)
Re:AMD (Score:2)
BogoMIPS are not "a pretty good estimate" (Score:4)
The reason for this is that a nop has no dependencies, so finishing it off requires no dependency checking or cache flushing. Predictive branching is absolutely minimal within the bogoMIPS algorithm from what I gather.
I don't know who gave you the idea that bogoMIPS are a useful indication of system or platform performance, but it simply isn't true. Real life code tends to be very complex with a lot of dependencies, so things like branch prediction and instruction reordering and such play more of a role in real system performance than simple MHz does, though in general there is a linear relationship between MHz and performance, given the same architecture. If you want more meaningful numbers, the SPEC numbers are reasonably good, but bear in mind the old saying, "Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates."
corrections, comments (Score:5)
Wrong! You forgot about that goddamned paperclip. By 2005, Microsoft will have advanced its goddamned paperclip technology to the point where it speaks with the same accent as the customer. Additionally, the goddamned paperclip will have a 6500 polygon count. God be damned.
Imagine being able to speak normally with your computer as you would a secretary sitting next to you
Ok, I'm imagining...
"Wow, I love the way your tits bounce when you type! Wanna take some dic (2 second pause) tation."
I'd feel really odd talking to my box that way. Of course, those of you who weren't fired from your last job due to sexual harassment might have a different view...
and have your computer accurately and quickly take notes from your speech.
Imagine trying to do revision with a speech recognition package. It's completely unsuited to the draft-revision-draft-revision-ad infinitum process used for serious writing. Limited usefullness at best. A good secretary will rewrite your dictated memos and edit them for clarity. It'll take more than cpu horsepower to get a computer to produce readable english prose - it'll take major advances in AI.
Imagine logging onto your computer not via a user name and a password but by sitting in front of your display and having it scan your face to figure out if you are allowed access to the computer.
Scary thought:combine advanced AI with face recognition. "Hey fat boy, welcome back - you look like hell. No wonder you never get laid. I'll let you log in, but I really think you should be out excersizing."
Thought provoking stuff, but not really in the killer app realm. The demand for high end cpu's in 2005 will be driven by the same factors that drive it now - "My cpu is faster than yours" ego competitions and undersexed geeks with a desire to see rounder breasts in Tomb Raider.
--Shoeboy
Re:But will it be enough? (Score:2)
Cluster whores (Score:5)
When a read a story on how "Vibucomp now offers computers that come with vibrators" (no pun intended), I don't need to read posts that say, "Wow, if I had a Beowulf cluster of those, imagine how many vibrators I'd have! I don't even have that many orifices!"
It shouldn't be too hard to introduce some sort of auto-moderation scheme that automatically -1's all cluster-mentioning posts to not-cluster-mentioning stories.
Re:Physics? (Score:5)
I think IBM or somebody has started doing segments of chips in synchronous sections, linked somewhat asynchronously, or at least each using independent clock pulses, to better approximate synchronized switching.
Re:Physics? (Score:2)
Re:Physics? (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but I think I heard that this might have been from a design where Cray was using the length of the wires to control the time-of-flight for the electrical signals between different parts of his design
If you calculate & implement everything absolutely correctly, you can build a computing device that doesn't need a synchronous clock (runs asynchronously because the signals are arriving where they need to be at the right moments). Not exactly a mass-fabrication technique though!
Re:Do we need 10Ghz ? (Score:2)
The strain of trying to simulate "reality" will coopt ANY amount of processing power that ANYBODY could put together!
Re:Intel thinks it can get past 0.1 microns (Score:4)
This only addresses the construction of such beasties, of course - the various companies still need a lot of tool development to deal with the "weird ass quantum things".