Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which theoretical processor would you rather have??

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which processor would you rather have at the moment?

Total: 39 votes (2 blank votes)

  • A processor clocked at 1 Tera-hertz
  • 84 %
  • A thousand processors clocked at 1GHz each??
  • 17 %
May 20, 2008 2:02:25 AM

I personally think that obviously with the state of multi-threading, you would never EVER use all thousand cores at once. Creating multi-threaded applications is just very difficult. So the strategy that the CPU companies are pursuing of increasing the number of cores is becoming increasingly moot. Next-Gen, we are supposed to have a 8-core processor, and possibly a 16-core one. I think a processor clocked at 1000Ghz would perform faster than the speed of light, effectively traveling back in time. Anyway,regarding heat and power comsumption, which will produce more heat and consume more power??I take it the 1 Thz processor would.

More about : theoretical processor

May 20, 2008 2:32:46 AM

Agreed, at this exact moment, a 1Thz processor would perform leaps and bounds over 1000 1ghz processors in todays consumer applications.

On a side note, it's much easier to write multi thread code for 1000 processors then it would be to engineer a 1thz processor.
May 20, 2008 2:44:41 AM

if i had one wish it would be a working tera-hertz processor that stays cool and fits into skt 775 :) 
Related resources
May 20, 2008 2:48:43 AM

Obviously the faster single core processor, because just like you said, right now the software is not scaling well enough to make it worth it. The only application that might have a chance to run well enough on a 1000-core CPU to challenge a single core @ 1000Ghz would be Raytracing me thinks...?
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2008 3:00:04 AM

wait....can we at least make that Thz CPU Dual Core? ;) 
May 20, 2008 3:06:19 AM

I wonder if we will ever see a Terra Hertz processor.

I mean we did go from 1mhz to 1ghz pretty quickly.

Or do you think we'll continue on he multi core path.
May 20, 2008 3:13:28 AM

As I said, Intel and AMD are apparently headed for more cores, which really wont improve performance too much. We need faster clock speeds damn it. I want to play my RTS games like SupCom with nice frames. 100,000 units with CPU calculating all the pathfinding and AI . CPUs are becoming bottlenecks now, its a shame. I doubt we'll get to the Tera-Hertz mark any time soon, We are still in the single digits for Ghz.
May 20, 2008 3:20:02 AM

DarthPiggie said:
I think a processor clocked at 1000Ghz would perform faster than the speed of light, effectively traveling back in time.


when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.
May 20, 2008 3:35:24 AM

imrul said:
when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.

Well when you travel close to the speed of light, everything arpound you speeds up, but time for you stays at a normal pace. It's all relative but if approaching the speed of light made you travel forwards in time, then passing the limit may have the opposite effect.
May 20, 2008 4:13:17 AM

well lets not go overboard here.
Well theoretically 10 Ghz with 50mb cache with 20Nm technology this is next gen stuff guys.

It stays cool under 50 degrees. XD
May 20, 2008 4:29:21 AM

Unfortunately, it doesnt look like that is the directio we are headed in, I wish that were, true. I would love that much cache and 10Ghz to boot.
May 20, 2008 4:59:03 AM

Hundreds... of years in the future... there could be computers... looking for life on Earth...

Don't fight for the wrong side.....

-"Twisted Logic" by Coldplay
May 20, 2008 4:59:06 AM

Why not just make faster, more efficient, single core processors and then slam 4 of those on a chip?

Although there is a clear advantage to multiple cores; all the background processes don't significantly slow down your computer.
a c 123 à CPUs
May 20, 2008 5:28:24 AM

Quote:
i think more cores is more efficient the problem is the software....


You could not be more correct. 1000 1GHz CPUs would do leaps and bounds in virtualization but our consumer software is just so far behing hardware. If software and games properly took advantage of the CPUs we have today and will have (Nehalem and whatever AMD has cooking) we would see performance gains by the 100x.

But we are stuck with it. Oh well here is hoping to better software soon.
May 20, 2008 5:38:11 AM

Would it be quicker to process complex simulation such as an "Earth Simulator"?

Id guess all software up until this point in history would run better on a single 1Thz processor so id choose that....

however

In the future, as programs become more and more complex it will become more logical to split the code into logical threads for multiple cores.

1 massive thread would just be to ilogical imo.

Hmm...I wonder what would be able to processes more data over a set period of time.....1000 threads being processed at 1GHZ or 1 thread being processed at 1Thz?






May 20, 2008 6:01:28 AM

Depends on the development of Operation and softwares, if Parallel computing become popular, 1000 x 1GHZ CPU would be preferred over but just with the high power consuming problem :heink: 

Based on the existing structure of Operation system and software, 1THZ CPU would be preferred over.

May 20, 2008 6:02:47 AM

horendus said:
Would it be quicker to process complex simulation such as an "Earth Simulator"?

Id guess all software up until this point in history would run better on a single 1Thz processor so id choose that....

however

In the future, as programs become more and more complex it will become more logical to split the code into logical threads for multiple cores.

1 massive thread would just be to ilogical imo.

Hmm...I wonder what would be able to processes more data over a set period of time.....1000 threads being processed at 1GHZ or 1 thread being processed at 1Thz?


I'd say pretty much they would be the same exact speed. Except for the fact that the multicore one would probably lose some performance because it has to communicate with itself through the cores.

I don't think a multicore processor would ever beat a single core processor with indentical theoretical computational power.

I mean, sure dual cores are good for "keeping the background processes on a different core". But I think if you had a single core processor with the core 2 duo architecture at 6Ghz, it could get those background processes out of the way just as effectively as a regular core 2 duo at 3ghz.
May 20, 2008 6:11:49 AM

yadge said:


I mean, sure dual cores are good for "keeping the background processes on a different core". But I think if you had a single core processor with the core 2 duo architecture at 6Ghz, it could get those background processes out of the way just as effectively as a regular core 2 duo at 3ghz.


agree 100%
May 20, 2008 6:18:22 AM

Yeah. I guess what I mean is that adding more cores is an effective way of increasing performance (when software complies), but an equally powerful single core processor would be just as good, if not slightly better. It just seems like people think the more cores the better. And while this is partially true, that doesn''t mean that a single core is gonna suck.
May 20, 2008 6:26:57 AM

Has anybody thought of the processors IPC. A 1000ghz processor with 1 IPC is basically the same as a 1ghz processor with a 1000 IPC.

This is why AMDs 3ghz(3 IPC) out ran the P4 3.8ghz (2 IPC) and why Core 2 at 2.4ghz (4 IPC) can take on a P4 dual at 4ghz (2 IPC) and still win. The future isn't more cores (yes they help but only to a certain point) or going over 4ghz (heat and power comsumption reasons) but higher IPCs.
May 20, 2008 6:40:47 AM

Exactly. It's the architecture that really matters. But in this situation we're assuming it's the same architecture, and in that case, I would say that the single core would be better.

And yeah though, people are too caught up with adding more cores and the gigahertz war. But really, I think it'd be fine to keep around the same speed processors as long as they get faster.
May 20, 2008 6:56:07 AM

Quote:
i guess we will never find out lol maybe our children will

Are you sure??
I bet it is here and some are using it
When it becomes an old tech it will be released for public
:bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce: 
May 20, 2008 6:57:27 AM

Yea well they need to get faster, faster. The way I see it, maintream processor development has slowed to a crawl.
May 20, 2008 10:20:43 AM

True about the LAN speed, but if everything was instantly done on the desktop, no waiting, as well as real lifelike games, and at 1 Thz, wed probly be seeing 3D in everything, itd work for me. But this is a no brainer. 1000 chips could never ever keep up with one 1000 times faster. The reason is, having all those threads would be impossible, and the compilation would still be done at 1000th the speed of the single Thz cpu.
May 20, 2008 11:08:02 AM

DarthPiggie said:
As I said, Intel and AMD are apparently headed for more cores, which really wont improve performance too much. We need faster clock speeds damn it. I want to play my RTS games like SupCom with nice frames. 100,000 units with CPU calculating all the pathfinding and AI . CPUs are becoming bottlenecks now, its a shame. I doubt we'll get to the Tera-Hertz mark any time soon, We are still in the single digits for Ghz.


Supcom is just the game for multicores though. You know when units shoot at each other and such its not just a simple animation set off, theres proper trajectory calcualtions for each shot. Hence things chug bad when big armies come together, its not the vid card side, its the cpu being strained. Supcom is also weird vecause the fps dives as soon as you hold down space and pan the camera around, even early in a gamer when theres jack all on screen/in your base.
May 20, 2008 11:19:28 AM

Theoretical prosessor...
Well ofcource it would be brand new quantum computer that is supposed to be thousand times more powerful than anything we have now...
:-)

a b à CPUs
May 20, 2008 11:31:18 AM

Can I have a quad at 250GHz? I think that'd be a lovely halfway!
May 20, 2008 11:43:17 AM

soy chocolate? hmmm, they make everything in chocolate nowadays, maybe even a 1 Thz cpu......
May 20, 2008 12:16:07 PM

I prefer 1 T Hz processor but I think this will consume more heat as compare to thousand 1MHz processor.
May 20, 2008 12:34:57 PM

Dreaming about what would be it like to OC a 1 Thz processor , hmm ... What would be the FSB ? Would I be able to get another 1GHz or 200 Mhz .. hehe :kaola:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
May 20, 2008 12:58:53 PM

Quote:
Nah, I like waiting, it gives me time to make soy chocolate ( i think that's the reason for me gaining 1kg...)

You crazy veggie. :lol:  :kaola: 
May 20, 2008 1:00:21 PM

sorry, double post
May 20, 2008 1:01:57 PM

Thats easy... you need to scale perfectly to even have a balance between choices there.


Pick the 1 THz CPU everytime....

then you get a 4 socket mobo and yer flying. :D 



A better question would have been a 1 THz CPU, or 1000 10 GHz CPUs... :) 
May 20, 2008 1:22:10 PM

yadge said:
Exactly. It's the architecture that really matters. But in this situation we're assuming it's the same architecture, and in that case, I would say that the single core would be better.

And yeah though, people are too caught up with adding more cores and the gigahertz war. But really, I think it'd be fine to keep around the same speed processors as long as they get faster.


Been there done that Pentium 4 anyone?

Word, Playa.
May 20, 2008 1:39:49 PM

AH! who are you :p  you are clearly the reason for the dyt at the end of my name :p 
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2008 1:47:56 PM

I am just going to work on the HSF for you guys.

I started with a one ton block of copper and bolted a Helicopter to the top of it ... seems good for a start anyway.

I was going to start machining out the fins for the copper top tomorrow with an industrial chainsaw.

Can you give me the rough dimensions of the IHS for the core so I can start polishing the bottom.

I am going to need a few gallons of Artic Silver and a couple of brooms to coat the bottom evenly ...

I was thinking we need an industrial shed for a case and the power supply isn't going to be pretty ...
May 20, 2008 1:49:05 PM

just to go a little green, dual core. core 0 at 1Thz and core 1 at a regular 60Ghz
May 20, 2008 1:49:25 PM

daft said:
just to go a little green, dual core. core 0 at 1Thz and core 1 at a regular 60Ghz



Or dynamic clocking...


If your watching a movie (for instance) - the CPU core runs at 500 MHz or lower, with the GPU clocked right down as far as possible as well :) 
May 20, 2008 1:52:03 PM

Reynod said:
I am just going to work on the HSF for you guys.


Why do you assume it uses current manufacturing techniques and materials? :??: 
May 20, 2008 2:24:43 PM

This question is completely irrelevant if we're talking about silicon processors. The processor manufacturers are not making a choice to push multi-core vs upping clockspeed. They are producing multi-core processors because there is not much more mileage left in heat / power / transistor density and switching speed. Sure, processors like power 6 are now running at twice what the top of the line from Intel and AMD are, but intel and amd need to look farther down the road and prepare for the day coming soon where the limits of photolithography are reached. Computers are just going to get wider from here on out with silicon technology. Developing multi-threaded applications is more difficult, but eventually the compilers and runtime environments will come to greatly assist in optimizing for the new paradigm, and hopefully soon production distributed operating systems will come around for the small server and desktop market and provide tremendous acceleration for our OS's. The day is coming where our CPU's will look like today's GPU's. Not far off that our gaming systems will possess thousands of cores between CPU's and GPU's.
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2008 3:10:32 PM

IBM spent more time ensuring the thermals are spread evenly across the die. Minimising hot spots.


I agree the current technology for single complex cores is just about at the limit.

Sure the leet overclockers can push 6 or 7 Gigahertz ... for at least 3 minutes ... before the whole thing smokes up.

The problem is programming multi-cores.

You know the old term "smoke and mirrors" ?

Maybe optics and optoelectronics is the way forward?

Orac ?
May 20, 2008 4:13:57 PM

Couple of years ago I read that intel have made cpu with 128 cores and that they predict similar products for consumer market in 2011. Don't know about clock speed.

This is what I see in future: Firsly like it went from vertex and pixel shaders to uiniversal shaders in gpu it will move to universal processing units replacing cpu and gpu. It will be build on optoelectronics each unit topping up to 20GHz. You will have 512 or 1024 processing units and each unit will be able to run 1 or more processes. It will also have dynamic clocking ability for each unit individually or group of units and option to switch individual units or groups off when not needed
May 20, 2008 4:58:49 PM

Reynod said:
Maybe optics and optoelectronics is the way forward?


Graphene (graphite) transistors with optical pathways.
May 20, 2008 11:39:25 PM

I'd take the Terahertz processor, but only if it overclocks well.





(Please note, I'm joking about the OCing)
May 20, 2008 11:41:36 PM

VIDEO: Tom's get a Pentium 4 Prescott OCed to 1 Terahertz:


!