What's the problem with 4GHz?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

What's so magic about 4GHz? Is nobody able to get beyond this value. Is
there some fundamental architecture issue here?
--
Grumps
13 answers Last reply
More about what problem 4ghz
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2oa2b5F8jmgaU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > What's so magic about 4GHz? Is nobody able to get beyond this value. Is
    > there some fundamental architecture issue here?
    > --
    > Grumps

    With some pretty extreme cooling, some Prescott cores have gone over 5GHz.

    MC
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Only money.

    --
    Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    For communication,
    replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    replace "dot" with "."


    "Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2oa2b5F8jmgaU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > What's so magic about 4GHz? Is nobody able to get beyond this value. Is
    > there some fundamental architecture issue here?
    > --
    > Grumps
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2oa2b5F8jmgaU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > What's so magic about 4GHz? Is nobody able to get beyond this value. Is
    > there some fundamental architecture issue here?
    > --
    > Grumps
    >
    >
    Break out the liquid nitrogen, and theres no problem at all...

    hamman
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    poorly designed chips........

    --
    From Adam Webb, Overlag
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    I think the main stream consumer has lost the appetite for more GHz. Unlike
    the 'old-days' the fact is now most systems are more than fast enough to do
    anything 'most' people want, so there is no business case for the
    manufacturers spending a fortune on developing ever faster chips in a short
    time scale, when there is no mass market there for them.

    --
    *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
    "Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2oa2b5F8jmgaU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > What's so magic about 4GHz? Is nobody able to get beyond this value. Is
    > there some fundamental architecture issue here?
    > --
    > Grumps
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    > mark krawczuk wrote:
    >
    >> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    >
    >
    > And you base this assertion on what?


    http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html

    :P

    -Steve
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> mark krawczuk wrote:
    >>
    >>> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And you base this assertion on what?
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html
    >
    > :P
    >
    > -Steve

    In the first place it's an old article speculating about things that did
    not come to pass but, even if it were still valid, 'hoping to in the
    future' is not the same as 'can do', much less 'can do now'.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    <quote>
    And, if an article in The Inquirer is right, we may be looking at a 10.2GHz
    CPU by 2005.
    </>

    ROFL yeah right

    --
    From Adam Webb, Overlag
    "Stephen Gordon" <s4054252@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
    news:cg22hp$20l$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
    > David Maynard wrote:
    > > mark krawczuk wrote:
    > >
    > >> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    > >
    > >
    > > And you base this assertion on what?
    >
    >
    > http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html
    >
    > :P
    >
    > -Steve
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:
    > David Maynard wrote:
    >> mark krawczuk wrote:
    >>
    >>> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    >>
    >> And you base this assertion on what?
    >
    > http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html

    This was written over a year and a half ago ... things have changed
    significantly since then :) The chip that was supposed to lay the groundwork
    (Tejas) for the chip that was to hit 10GHz (Nehalem) has been cancelled,
    supposedly due to excessive heat. Intel has all but said "yeah, we found the
    MHz ceiling, so we're done up here and coming back down", and has fallen
    back to a revamped P3 design that runs at a slower speed but performs just
    as well. So don't get your hopes up for a 10GHz chip in the near future.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    news:cftrto$p1s$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > I think the main stream consumer has lost the appetite for more GHz. Unlike
    > the 'old-days' the fact is now most systems are more than fast enough to do
    > anything 'most' people want, so there is no business case for the
    > manufacturers spending a fortune on developing ever faster chips in a short
    > time scale, when there is no mass market there for them.
    >

    I suppose most people have computers as fast as they want, but I'm pretty sure I
    could almost max out a 10GHz cpu...

    I could probably use a couple terabytes of hard drive space to go with it
    though.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:
    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> mark krawczuk wrote:
    >>
    >>> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And you base this assertion on what?
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html
    >
    > :P
    >
    > -Steve

    I like how everyone ignored my smiley suggesting some sarcasm. It gives
    me a warm fuzzy feeling.

    -Steve
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:
    > Stephen Gordon wrote:
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>> mark krawczuk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> the thing is they could make a 10ghz cpu,
    >>>
    >>> And you base this assertion on what?
    >>
    >> http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2003/01/a290103nehalem.html
    >>
    >>> P
    >>
    >> -Steve
    >
    > I like how everyone ignored my smiley suggesting some sarcasm. It
    > gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

    Might want to use a smiley that doesn't look like quoted text next time :)

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:
    >
    >
    > Might want to use a smiley that doesn't look like quoted text next time :)
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
    >
    >

    >_<

    -Steve
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking Hardware