Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why aren’t cpus at a native 4ghz yet?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 4:21:27 AM

Hello all,

I'd like to know why aren’t cpus at a native speed of 4ghz yet?

I mean come on, since the P4 days, there hasn’t been any jaw dropping RAW native speed increases. Sure there’s multiple core's and drastically improved memory/bandwidth techniques used, but the way i see things panning out, I can understand why nvidia/ati want push past the cpu barrier and take on some of the rolls that of the cpu themselves.

A good example is with the gtx280 and the ati4870 where they're both heavily bottlenecked with today's highest native cpu speeds and is pretty much a requirement to o/c your cpu to the 4ghz region to see any decent improvement compared to the last couple generations of gpu's.

I hope amd's and inte'ls next cpu offerings will change all this, because as it stands now, its nearly a waste of money buying new graphic cards if the cpu just hasn’t got the balls to feed them.

:) 



More about : arent cpus native 4ghz

October 2, 2008 4:32:59 AM

its harder to get stability with +3.0ghz while in control of temperature/voltage...

but realistically, we've moved far far from p4, to the point where a p4 at 4.0ghz is outperformed by a c2d at half that speed, so really there's no need for us to get higher clocks when we are improving performance from clock to clock.........
again a pentium d a 2.2ghz is destroyed and raped by a c2d at 2.2ghz

and no, bottleneck in those extremes only occur with extremely high end cards such as 4870x2 in extremely low resolutions like 1280x1024... i mean why should someone with that card be playing at those resolutions anyway?
October 2, 2008 4:40:15 AM

Raw processor frequency is just simply not the way to go anymore. Both AMD and Intel have put their R&D dollars to work on getting more instructions per clock and cramming more processing cores into a processor package.

A single Core 2 core against a single P4 core at the same frequency would be a total bloodbath in favor of Core 2.

AMD was the company that gets the credit for breaking us of our GHZ addiction. They showed us with their Socket A processors and model rating system that their processors would outperform a higher frequency processor. Ever since that time we have relied heavily on benchmarks to tell what processor is better.

Also, as software writers start going multi-threaded (Photoshop, encoding, newer video games like Crysis) we start to see huge gains from multiple cores. It will take a while for software to catch up, but it's happening as we speak!

I beg you to look at performance results, not processor frequencies.


I hope that helps.
Related resources
October 2, 2008 4:41:15 AM

If frequency is what you want, Look into IBM Power series, they've had 4 and even 5 GHz for a while
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 4:41:43 AM

We don't all have power plants in our backyard and liquid nitrogen pumped to the house like natural gas. How are we supposed to overclock when the chip is already being pushed?
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 4:47:51 AM

ahh sweet, thanks guys, yea i've got a p4 lol :(  going to upgrade soon the near future. I'd thought id give it as an example of speed i guess because im seeing people recieving far better scores from these gpus when they've insanely overclocked their duos and quads to 4ghz, off air, making me think gpus are better off at these speeds then compared to 3.2/3.6ghz.
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 4:49:21 AM

If you run at 1920x1200 with 4xaa all on max, you aren't going to see much difference going from 3-4GHz. Maybe in FSX, but that is a coding horror.
October 2, 2008 4:54:49 AM

randomizer said:
We don't all have power plants in our backyard and liquid nitrogen pumped to the house like natural gas.



Because it costs so much to support forum kittahs we cant afford power plants in our backyard and liquid nitrogen pumped to the house :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 4:56:41 AM

Go back to your hole you bastage! (But continue to fund my LN2).
October 2, 2008 5:01:45 AM

Were those 280s and 4870s overclocked too?
October 2, 2008 5:23:17 AM

randomizer said:
If you run at 1920x1200 with 4xaa all on max, you aren't going to see much difference going from 3-4GHz. Maybe in FSX, but that is a coding horror.

While thats generally true, its not an exact truth. Theres several things that make that too general. First off, if youd said or added "for acceptable fps" itd be more true, but even then theres a few things Id like to point out. Using the 4870x2, you cant say that 4xAA has a major effect on that card, as it barely does at all, and many times less than what youd get from a higher oc. Also, once DX10.1/11 comes out, 4xAA will be a moot point, and will give a capable cards a nice fps boost. So far, the only game weve seen it used in, it showed a 20% boost, tho those cards werent very good at AA to nbegin with, and I havnt checked the performance difference on the 4xxx series, which can be found at TR when the 4xxx series was released, as they included the DX10.1 benches on the 4xxx series as well. Needless to say, it made the lower 4850 either beat or come close to the G280, which shows the improvements.
Theres plenty of benches that show the 4870x2 and sometimes the G280 as well still seeing improvements no matter how high the cpu is clocked. In some games, this is important, in most, its not.
One thing a higher oceed cpu will do no matter how good its multithtreaded is in the minimum fps, which is the more important use of fps anyways, so saying higher clocks isnt the way to go, or even higher IPC, isnt true, but mainly due to the law of physics, multithreading is forced upon us, as cpus just cant go much faster, at least until we find a better material to make out cpus from
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 5:26:48 AM

Why would DX10.1/DX11 make 4x AA a moot point? From what I read a while ago DX10.1 just made support for 4x AA mandatory and nothing more.
October 2, 2008 5:38:13 AM

Its part of the DX model. It allows for fewer passes required, thus adding to or if you will reducing a cycle from the gpu. Remember, its not just a SW requirement, the gpu has to compatable, HW compatable
October 2, 2008 5:48:36 AM

Unfortunately, the biggest loss IMO we will see from cpus not having higher clocks or IPC will be the inability of a lessor card to reach those acceptable fps, but more important a good gpu with a challenging game wont see improvements in minimal fps, which in the past, if the game was gpu bottlenecked, the cpu could pick up a little slack with the minmum fps. So until multithreading arrives, we will see more of this, as were seeing some of it already, just not enough to worry about, tho if you can crank your cpu up, sometimes it gives you a smoother experience by lifting those minimum fps
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 5:51:00 AM

Fortunately I'll never have a problem, my 9600GT is too slow to need my CPU any faster than 2.7GHz :kaola: 
October 2, 2008 6:01:03 AM

LOL oh noesss
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 6:02:53 AM

When your CPU idles at 51C, it's a good thing not needing to overclock :lol: 
October 2, 2008 6:09:53 AM

Dayam. Why so high?
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 6:12:15 AM

No idea. It's pretty hot in here today, it runs around 45C in winter, which is still warm.
October 2, 2008 6:18:03 AM

We hit the clockspeed wall years ago. Multi-core is the future now it seems, for better or for worse...

That being said, with the latest E0 stepping, in a pinch Intel could conceivably release stock 4GHz chips (at least for duals, quads will be harder) and remain under a reasonable TDP.

However since there is currently no competition from AMD in the high end even at 3GHz, I doubt we'll be seeing stock clocked 4GHz chips anytime soon - unless BM's dreams come true and Deneb comes stock clocked at 4GHz, that'll get Intel off their asses. :lol: 
October 2, 2008 6:38:15 AM

Thats true, and itd be good to see as well, tho Id hate to have to pay for any of those chips
@ da kittah, do you know Satan? heheh thats hot!!!
October 2, 2008 8:07:23 AM

I'd rather see software utilization of more cores, and that includes games as well. The promise of dual cores was that the insane clockspeed race would be supplanted by more elegant programming leading to superior computing. Intel's managed to increase cores with higher clocks since the Core 2 architecture, and AMD looks to be catching up somewhat when 45nm arrives, but overall, I'd rather see a 6 or 8 core at 2.4 gigahertz utilized fully in a few years than to see a dual or quad at 4 gigahertz native and overclocking on water to 5 gigahertz.
October 2, 2008 9:03:53 AM

I feel your pain randomizer.. i got a 8800gt AKIMBO (uber cooling) for my inspirion 530... tight fit :D  ... and it usually under load is about 55 C.. unless i'm playing crysis and that usually takes it up to about 60C, once it even got to 65C.. and thats with the fan on 75%

Needless to say, im looking for a new case... lol unfortunatly, i haven't seen one so far to slat my lust :(  though i do have about 10 bookmarked on newegg eheheh.
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 9:38:12 AM

Cases are a pain. My Centurion 5 better last me forever, I don't want to spend money on something that won't boost my FPS. :kaola: 
October 2, 2008 9:38:19 AM

randomizer said:
No idea. It's pretty hot in here today, it runs around 45C in winter, which is still warm.

hah don't feel so bad, coretemp 0.99.3 reports my

Q9450 @ 3.2ghz to be 46,49,45,46

while RealTemp 2.70 reports 41,41,44,41

and this is at night at like 2AM, during the daytime, it hit 50's idle easy. priming takes it up to around 65-67 and this is in a clean wired antec 900 case with front/exhaust/side fans on high. every fan is 120mm, and the top is 200mm which is on medium. :p 
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 9:54:43 AM

same question as to why road cars dont redline at 500,000rpm by now - why bother when you got turbo's and nos etc

a core 2 duo beyond ~1.8ghz doesnt run at 4ghz but performs better then a P4 at 4ghz - theres your answer, easier with more efficency rather then more mhz, and more mhz doesnt mean more performance, there are better ways to get more performance (bus technologies, cache, core count etc).
October 2, 2008 9:57:35 AM

funny how intel in the P4 days thought they could get up to 10ghz with the netburst architecture.

they encountered a little thing called heat :p 
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2008 10:08:41 AM

Hence the popularity of LN2 (and LHe if you're hardcore).
October 2, 2008 10:54:46 PM

boju said:
Hello all,

I'd like to know why aren’t cpus at a native speed of 4ghz yet?

I mean come on, since the P4 days, there hasn’t been any jaw dropping RAW native speed increases. Sure there’s multiple core's and drastically improved memory/bandwidth techniques used, but the way i see things panning out, I can understand why nvidia/ati want push past the cpu barrier and take on some of the rolls that of the cpu themselves.

A good example is with the gtx280 and the ati4870 where they're both heavily bottlenecked with today's highest native cpu speeds and is pretty much a requirement to o/c your cpu to the 4ghz region to see any decent improvement compared to the last couple generations of gpu's.

I hope amd's and inte'ls next cpu offerings will change all this, because as it stands now, its nearly a waste of money buying new graphic cards if the cpu just hasn’t got the balls to feed them.

:) 

I ran a series of tests with my E8400 at 3.6Ghz, and at 1.2Ghz... there was barely any bottlenecking. In fact, I still got about 80FPS (vs my usual 120) in Call of Duty 4 with a timedemo (1680x1050, Max, 4xAA, 8xAF). I think anything E6600 or above should be plenty to handle any single card/chip solution.
October 2, 2008 11:01:55 PM

eklipz330 said:
its harder to get stability with +3.0ghz while in control of temperature/voltage...

but realistically, we've moved far far from p4, to the point where a p4 at 4.0ghz is outperformed by a c2d at half that speed, so really there's no need for us to get higher clocks when we are improving performance from clock to clock.........
again a pentium d a 2.2ghz is destroyed and raped by a c2d at 2.2ghz

and no, bottleneck in those extremes only occur with extremely high end cards such as 4870x2 in extremely low resolutions like 1280x1024... i mean why should someone with that card be playing at those resolutions anyway?


well yeah, because a C2D at 2.0Ghz... is 2 2Ghz cores. Add the cache and advanced memory bandwidth stuff, and no wonder it's gonna trash a P4.

Same with a Pentium D vs Core 2 Duo. A Pentium D 2.2Ghz is 2.2Ghz total... while a C2D 2.2Ghz is 2 different cores at 2.2Ghz.
October 2, 2008 11:05:22 PM

epsilon84 said:
We hit the clockspeed wall years ago. Multi-core is the future now it seems, for better or for worse...

That being said, with the latest E0 stepping, in a pinch Intel could conceivably release stock 4GHz chips (at least for duals, quads will be harder) and remain under a reasonable TDP.

However since there is currently no competition from AMD in the high end even at 3GHz, I doubt we'll be seeing stock clocked 4GHz chips anytime soon - unless BM's dreams come true and Deneb comes stock clocked at 4GHz, that'll get Intel off their asses. :lol: 


yeah, in 5 years we'll have 64 core processors, still clocked at 3.0Ghz for an extreme edition, and the caches will still be like 3MB per core :p ... seriously though.

It seems like the computer companies these days are just learning to shove more of the same stuff into the chip casing.

Sorry for the horrendous amount of posts lol.
October 2, 2008 11:23:17 PM

randomizer said:
Go back to your hole you bastage! (But continue to fund my LN2).
:cry: 
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2008 12:11:14 AM

turpit said:
:cry: 

:sol: 
October 3, 2008 3:52:42 AM

doomsdaydave11 said:
yeah, in 5 years we'll have 64 core processors, still clocked at 3.0Ghz for an extreme edition, and the caches will still be like 3MB per core :p ... seriously though.

It seems like the computer companies these days are just learning to shove more of the same stuff into the chip casing.

Sorry for the horrendous amount of posts lol.

five years??? Try 2-3 tops. Next year/early 2010 Intel is releasing a quad core with octo-hyper-threading.

J believe that's 32 instructions per cycle, or the equivalence of 32 cores. I'd say 2-3 tops. (5 years might be how long it will take the gaming industry to shift to the idea of large number of CPU cores, which will be awesome for games. It'll be a nightmare for those companies that are refusing to modernize their coding base for multi-threaded languages, though.)
October 3, 2008 5:02:41 AM

randomizer said:
:sol: 
:fou: 

TechnologyCoordinator said:
:D 
:kaola: 
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2008 5:04:59 AM

So many smilies... Since when did spam bots become moderators?

*snicker*

*Holds up anti-ban shield*
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2008 6:03:01 AM

doomsdaydave11 said:
well yeah, because a C2D at 2.0Ghz... is 2 2Ghz cores. Add the cache and advanced memory bandwidth stuff, and no wonder it's gonna trash a P4.

Same with a Pentium D vs Core 2 Duo. A Pentium D 2.2Ghz is 2.2Ghz total... while a C2D 2.2Ghz is 2 different cores at 2.2Ghz.



What are you talking about? A Pentium D 2.2Ghz is 2 different cores at 2.2Ghz. The reason the core 2 beats it out is because of the newer architecture.
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2008 11:27:38 AM



Am I missing the point here but isnt it how many clock cycles a processor has or even mips that makes the difference..

Yes at one point MHz was the race between Intel and AMD...

AMD proved that wrong because it could do more per clock count..

Intel did this with core 2 duo... And continue to do so - so very much better than AMD..


It makes me laugh when i see on ebay a 10GHZ Q6600 processor when there is no such thing
each core runs a 2.4 but its what each core does with that 2.4 that counts..

Intel proved that with the Centrino laptop chip at 1.7 comparing to p4 3.4s

I would rather have a 2GHz running at low power with a better efficiency rating which has more raw power than a 4GHz anyday.

a 2.4 is the new 4GHz in p4 terms...

Now obviously the more MHz longterm is better but this means more heat which has other problems to contend with..


a b à CPUs
October 3, 2008 12:15:56 PM

BadTrip said:
What are you talking about? A Pentium D 2.2Ghz is 2 different cores at 2.2Ghz. The reason the core 2 beats it out is because of the newer architecture.


Core 2's 4 IPC and 14 stage design + shared L2 (making the FSB more effective) vs Prescott's ~2 IPC and ~35 Stages design at a greater clock speed and older FSB thrashing cache/core designs

BTW 2 cores @ 2ghz DOESNT equal 4ghz or anything even near like that, total BS

Celeron 420m will blitz a Pentium 4, and an E1200 (2x1.6ghz) will own a Pentium D 3+ghz (2x3ghz = 6ghz, 2x1.6 = 3.2ghz - TOTAL BS FACTOR THERE) - architecture is totall different.

We are looking at P6 tech here - a Tualatin 1400 owned most Wilamette P4's in there day even back then! its always been Intels greatest design.
October 3, 2008 8:56:02 PM

Problem is, the more efficient ( fewer cycles, shorter the pipe) for a better IPC, the hotter it gets, or the slower it goes. So, finding a good balance , or sweet spot is the key, and since C2D, Intels pretty much found it, and just has needed smaller processes and a afew tweaks to reach the low 3Ghz range. Someday, MAYBE a 4Ghz could come, but well have to wait for awhile on that
October 3, 2008 10:33:56 PM

descendency said:
five years??? Try 2-3 tops. Next year/early 2010 Intel is releasing a quad core with octo-hyper-threading.

J believe that's 32 instructions per cycle, or the equivalence of 32 cores. I'd say 2-3 tops. (5 years might be how long it will take the gaming industry to shift to the idea of large number of CPU cores, which will be awesome for games. It'll be a nightmare for those companies that are refusing to modernize their coding base for multi-threaded languages, though.)


Let's bet on this one. There is no way there are gonna be 32 core processors in 2-3 years.. That doesn't really follow the trend of processor advancement anyway...
October 3, 2008 10:57:51 PM

randomizer said:
Cases are a pain. My Centurion 5 better last me forever, I don't want to spend money on something that won't boost my FPS. :kaola: 


I have a Centurion 5. Personally, I think the cooling sucks. I have to Scythe Ultra Kaze 3k RPM fans....one intake and one on cpu cooler and a diff brand 120mm for exhaust. My cpu idles at 42C when my room temp is 75 +- 2degrees. maybe when everything cools off in a few months I'll be seeing decent temps.

I forgot to mention. My case is on it's last leg before i throw it outside to feed the garbage dumpster. :D 
October 3, 2008 11:21:00 PM

Intel's HKMG 3.2GHz quad is at 136W. That's why. Though I would think that a dual core do it at around 140W. AMD just released a 3.1GHz Brisbane at 89W.
October 3, 2008 11:22:06 PM

randomizer said:
So many smilies... Since when did spam bots become moderators?

*snicker*

*Holds up anti-ban shield*



:sarcastic: 

Since Forum Kiitahs wished for LN2 piped to their houses....
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2008 9:42:09 AM

turpit said:
:sarcastic: 

Since Forum Kiitahs wished for LN2 piped to their houses....


:ange: 

*Holds up anti-LN2 shield*
October 4, 2008 1:18:00 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Intel's HKMG 3.2GHz quad is at 136W. That's why. Though I would think that a dual core do it at around 140W. AMD just released a 3.1GHz Brisbane at 89W.


A 4GHz Yorkfield is possible at around 150W (probably less with the E0 stepping, the following numbers are from the C0 stepping).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=318...


Its not as far fetched as some people think, but there is simply no need for Intel to compete with itself since the top AMD quad is clocked at 2.6GHz and is slower per clock as well.
!