|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member (12 bit)
|
Intel releases 3.06GHz, and a Gates story
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Professional Cow Tipper
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Enid, OK, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,859
|
If I got off a plane and was greeted by a giant condom like that, I would probably take it as a putdown, thinking they were calling me something else!
__________________
Excellent guess, Kreskin! Wrong...but excellent. *quote from Space Quest 6* |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member (10 bit)
|
Whoa!now that's fast...
how fast will AMD's Hammer will be when they come out? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northwest
Posts: 185
|
They are looking at 3200+
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (12 bit)
|
so in about a year we should have 4500 plus?
WE have to be getting close to some limit with out a major new architecture and system redesign? I believe the days of single OS systems are serverly numbered. I think Win XP HOME is the Last MS OS that only supports a single processor. I could be wrong, but I beleive WIN XP HOME only supports a single processor, while XP PRO supports dual processors. I just believe We are reaching a limit in what a single processor can do. The next step is going to be in effiently using multiply processors I think. But Limits are meant to be challenged. Someone will always be finding a new way to advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Member (9 bit)
|
Quote:
you can look the thing up if you want, but don't believe everything you hear cause there is a lot of idiots out there saying junk like 200ghz gpu, 2gigs of ram etc etc and none has been confirmed by sony. Only thing sony said was that its working with ibm and others and the thing will be 50ghz. also it'll do 1 or 2 teraflops Last edited by Ryan2318; 11-15-2002 at 11:49 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northwest
Posts: 185
|
The P4 will reach ~10Ghz
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |||
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northwest
Posts: 185
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: MN or WI
Posts: 3,017
|
Almost every chip is now 3D, the CPUs have a lot of layers, but the flat shape is because you need a large surface area to volume ratio to dissipate heat. If you add more layers, you create heat problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northwest
Posts: 185
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | ||
|
Member (12 bit)
|
opps let me rephase what i meant here
Quote:
Also Quote:
sorry, when I come home from work, my mind is not all here. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,575
|
Something to keep in mind. With Hyper-threading, yes, the BIOS sees the new P4 as a dual CPU, but you do not need Windows XP Pro which supports dual CPU's for it to work. Windows XP Home does support Hyper-threading.
__________________
-At Ford, quality is job #1, job #2 is making them explode. ~Norm MacDonald, SNL News -Switching to Glide..Balancing in my head..inside of me... taking the glide path instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,261
|
I think that it may turn out to be a significant advantage but I have read where with most current software it is actually slower with the hyperthreading enabled. But I am still intrigued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Random
Posts: 997
|
The current photolithography process used in fabrication is an expensive one. If you notice the trends, process size has gotten smaller, but more logarithmically than linearly. Indeed, the shift to .13 micron was expensive. The actual creation of the processor is not too expensive, but the creation of the masks are horribly expensive from my understanding. While it is entirely possible to shrink smaller, I doubt there will be more than one or two future die shrinks, unless, of course, a more economical way is devised.
Neither do I think the key lies in multiprocessing. The algorithms are much more difficult (at least to me, but I know a few who are better at parallel than sequential algorithms oddly enough) and not all processes lend themselves to parallel processing. In fact, many algorithms achieve no benefit from parallelism. I could never confirm this story, but I would not discard it: The man who created Deep Blue (whose name escapes me) did previous work on parallelism. The board almost did not give him his doctorate because they could not understand his work. They knew it worked, they knew it worked extremely well, but they could not figure out why. Respectfully, Demosthenes |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northwest
Posts: 185
|
Quote:
It seems like I am always doing many things at once. When I'm on the computer I'm usually checking the forums, writing emails, and video encoding all at the same time. Multitasking will benefit greatly from parallel processing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Random
Posts: 997
|
I must be behind the times.
What do they do now? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|