Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel CPUs that are OVER 10 GHZ???!! By 2005WTF??!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 10, 2003 2:04:30 AM

I just read a thread over at anandtech with a link to a story by the inquirer that states that by two years time, 2005, that the intel CPUs will be friggin' over 10Ghz???!

What kind of crazy stuff is that? How on earth are we supposed to keep up with this technology? I mean normal people with normal jobs!

I was thinking, what the hell, the software companies won't go THAT far and make these software or games that need that kind of speed?! I hope not! I mean they already have that game "Need for Speed 2" and I don't play racing games.

If this is the case I guess I'm just going to get either an Xbox or PS2, and keep my p3 800mhz for browsing the net and typing stuff. Or I may upgrade once and just get the "Sweet buys", the cheap price drop stuff like the current pentium 4 2.4 ghz CPUS, the biggest drop in price per 200mhz or so from the 3.06g down, and buy a cheap case forget that Xaser III Thermaltake I was going to get. And second best ram.

Remember the good old days when I was in primary school where we played chinese checkers and "animal chess" and UNO cards. That was fun. I wish we can all still have fun doing those things. But then those "BBC" computers with ilke 14kb ram came out and people started playing games. It was still under control and we played things like swat the flies with the mouse and we competed typing as fast as possible from A to Z. It wasn't years later that I even saw solitaire and minesweeper, which all seemed very advanced at the time. Now windows ME comes with Pinball and WinME is OLD.

More about : intel cpus ghz 2005wtf

February 10, 2003 2:53:01 AM

The p4 core is made to scale up to 10Ghz. Wasn't it also a prediction that by 2005 cpu's would produce as much heat as a rocket blasting off (intel said this I beleive).
Oh yeah, wanna talk about games? We had to simulate fish in class and u had to keep on proessing enter after each iteration of the simulation, so my friends and I had a competition going to see who could do it the fastest for 1000 iterations. I won of course (though we all claimed we did :) ) Finally I cheated and took that option off and made it go as fast as the cpu could handle mwahahaha.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 10, 2003 3:30:47 AM

Are you talking about code efficiency or processor scalability when you say "as fast as the cpu could handle"?

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
Related resources
February 10, 2003 4:16:15 AM

Isn't there some scientific law about processors doubling in speed every year? I think some person in the 1960s came up it. I could be wrong though.
February 10, 2003 5:40:11 AM

It should be mentioned that the processor that will scale to 10 GHz+ is the Nehalem chip which is suppose to be a brand new core. We have no idea how well the P8 core will be and most likely, it'll be some form of an IA-64 implementation with an x86 legacy device attached for "old times sake". So we can't exactly be sure how well that 10 GHz Nehalem chip will perform against previous P7-based cores. Of course, Teja, the successor to Prescott, is set to scale to 9.2 or so GHz and that's based on the current P7 core (with improvements over the P4 and Prescott obviously). So we know that'll be quite a performer.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2003 5:56:27 AM

I wouldn't worry too much. How fast CAN office run, anyway? Seriously, the only things today's top processors are needed for are things like scientific/engineering apps and data conversion. You can run super fast on a 1GHz processor and a good video card in games, for example. And how inefficient can they make software, I think XP is running near the peak of inefficiency!

<font color=blue>There are no stupid questions, only stupid people doling out faulty information based upon rumors, myths, and poor logic!</font color=blue>
February 10, 2003 11:10:07 AM

Don't ever underestimate the power of bloating software. If I wanted, I could make Pong bring a 4.2 GHz overclocked P4 to its knees.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
February 10, 2003 12:43:25 PM

Yeah OFFICE can run fine, but I don't see why so many say that a 1 Gig P4 can run games great with a good videocard.
I have a decent videocard (G4ti4200 128mb) , but my CPU is a p3 865mhz and while I can run older games very well when I run some of the latest games they really choke up. I can run UT2k3 smoothly most of the time but it goes down to 10 fps on the heavier maps. This is with all details on moderate. I can't really do low detail because it looks worse than Unreal TOurnament 1. Some new fpses really do choke down to under 10 fps. I can't see how much better a 1 gig is compared to a 865mhz, maybe 10% but no day and night difference. Perhaps it's just my machine? But my 3dmark is on par with most people with these specs.

I'm gonna get a new computer anyway. But just wished I know whether the future 10.20 GHz CPUs in 2005 will be necessary or ALMOST necessary for games then. I can't see how they will make games need THAT much resources. I mean, what are they gonna do? It'd be stupid to add that much detail to it. BUT, if they DO make it like that, then that means a 3.06Ghz will be obsolete in 2 months!!!! I mean, we are talking an INCREASE, not total, of over 7 GHZ in 2 years!!!

I seriously doubt they will make the GAMES need that much hardware because kids play games. Normal people play games. Not just hardware enthusiasts who are die hard to always get the latest systems. We get all crazy here in the overclocking forums and stuff but kids don't dish out 20000 dollars every year to get a new system. But then again everyone here seems to think the game developers will do that and it gets me very very nervous.
February 10, 2003 12:54:51 PM

I think that one thing being overlooked here is just because something <i>can</i> be done, doesn't mean that it <i>will</i> be done. Obviously Intel wants to take us for all of the money that it can. Intel can't do that by upping the processor speed to 10GHz in two years. No, they'll do it by increasing the speed at the same pace that they've been doing for the last year.

So the only real point here is that we know pretty clearly now that should AMD try to race Intel again for performance, Intel isn't in the least bit scared, because they can accelerate their timetable and match AMD at anything they do.


PC Repair-Vol 1:Getting To Know Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 2:Troubleshooting Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 3:Having Trouble Troubleshooting Your PC?
PC Repair-Vol 4:Having Trouble Shooting Your PC?
February 10, 2003 1:00:51 PM

Quote:
Don't ever underestimate the power of bloating software. If I wanted, I could make Pong bring a 4.2 GHz overclocked P4 to its knees.

I love Pong! If I ever get around to writing it, my next Pong clone (I've always named them 'Bounce') will utilize OpenGL (and possibly a DX8 or 9 mode as well). So is 3D optimization good enough for Pong for now?

Which also reminds me of the new 3D mode that I wanted to introduce... What do you think about a perspective change so that you're looking down through a square tube with you on one side and the computer/other player down the Z axis?


PC Repair-Vol 1:Getting To Know Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 2:Troubleshooting Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 3:Having Trouble Troubleshooting Your PC?
PC Repair-Vol 4:Having Trouble Shooting Your PC?
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2003 6:31:00 PM

Because there is no P4 1GHz? Or because if there were, it would be lame? I was running the latest games on my PIII 1GHz at 1024x768 with medium-high settings on an old Radeon card. I here this years games will be more demanding, but nothing an upgrade to a 9500 Pro wouldn't have solved.

<font color=blue>There are no stupid questions, only stupid people doling out faulty information based upon rumors, myths, and poor logic!</font color=blue>
February 11, 2003 1:57:19 AM

You know, if AMD's designers could just try to sit there for one night, try to think up of a new design, they can easily come up with a 20 stage pipeline, and take many years to develop the CPU, but at least, at the very least, that CPU can compete for sure and keep up anyday with Intel. Sadly, maybe K9 will have it, but that's in so much more years than now, and god knows how AMD's monetary situation will be.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
February 11, 2003 3:27:23 AM

Your reckon the slow CPU won't act as some kind of bottleneck? And not let your radeon perform to the best of its potential?
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2003 4:18:30 AM

Well of COURSE a two year old CPU will be a bottleneck, you'll loose 20-30% of your 3D perfomance! But even with that loss, you're still gaming OK. I think the thing you might need to consider is, the 1000MHz CPU will encode your video from the useless VIDX codec to the universal MPEG2 format at about 2/3 the speed of a P4 2GHz, or half the speed of a P4 3GHz.

<font color=blue>There are no stupid questions, only stupid people doling out faulty information based upon rumors, myths, and poor logic!</font color=blue>
February 11, 2003 8:42:03 AM

Games, apps, everything, can ALWAYS benefit from more speed.

Theres tons of features that can still be implemented into todays most generic apps and such.

Picture Office with full voice integration, full thesaurus, dictionairy, grammar, blah etc. stuff running while your encoding some Divx videos in realtime off the tv that you dont wanna miss later while listening to DVD audio rips on your 6.1 audio setup, all while having constant pr0n running in the background.


Sadly enough, like one poster said above, Intel will milk us out of all the $$$ they can until we get there.
February 11, 2003 9:10:08 AM

Virtual Reality

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
February 11, 2003 10:26:34 AM

Sorry Crash but recently games are still coming out half-arsed coded, can't even take advantage of the card and instead, perform poorly on low clocked CPUs. Go check Ace's upgrade guide, it shows how even a 1.4 Tbird lately just doesn't cut it, even with upgraded cards, simply because some games can't properly be coded to use the DirectX 8 advantage. If only some would follow Aquanox' example, one of the most clearly coded games yet.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
February 11, 2003 12:46:07 PM

going to 20 stage pipeligne dont do miracle.

Most of the survey show that corporate are looking for better security so la grande and paladium may end up to be the next big feature or the big selling point of future CPU.Intel is looking for new marketing point to sold CPU.

Just next to the lab and the bunker you will find the marketing departement.
February 11, 2003 5:22:13 PM

Hey, there is no 1Ghz P4 :)  Anyway, I play games and spend my bucks on hardware almost exclusively for gaming, and boy I'm no kid anymore (though my wife wont agree). The thing is, games require lots of processing power and not just for graphics, though this is a major issue, but AI too is among the cpu mungers. Massive multiplayer games will increase in number and complexity with thousands of NPC (non-player-character) played by the computer. CPU cicles will never remain unspent. Take games nowaday, they still need faster CPUs.
Regarding the market, I say computer gaming will replace most forms of entertainment in the coming years. Even the movie industry will be surpassed by VR games and very sofisticated multiplayer games. People will spend their bucks on new hardware and software the same way you and I now buy a new computer every 2 or so years just to play that last FPS just out the door as it was meant to be played. The need for entertainment wont go away. UNO can be fun but its no match against a nice online shooter after work (Yeah, I dont bowl).
(We) game developers will seek new ways to boost games off limits. Games will be so much more sophisticated that you just cant picture it now. Had you thought about Doom in the 80s? Or Dune thereafter? No, we had to see those games to know we wanted them so bad. For the coming years CPUs wont be powerful enough and if they were, new ways for consuming their power will come up.

Cheers.
February 11, 2003 10:13:31 PM

OMFG! U just dissed my 1.2Ghz T-Bird! U callin him obsolete?! Commere, I'm gonna use ur ass as a heatsink for him! Say sorry!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 12, 2003 12:59:55 AM

But I have a 1.4GHZ AthlonXP and it has not been doing too far good in the benches on Ace's! (ok they used a Tbird, but mine is like, what, 10% tops better in gaming)

Lousy programmers that can't properly do DirectX 8 games.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
February 12, 2003 1:08:56 AM

Hehe, I view my proc as the Tank. It does everything with great speed, especially for my purposes and lasts a long time (and can survive easily in high temps!). Yeah, it is up to the skill of the programmer- initially my quantum simulations took over 30 mins to simulate a 9 bits system (and anything over 12 was out of the question) but after several revisions, it can now simulate a 60 bit system in under aminute!!!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 12, 2003 5:38:31 PM

It is no big deal about keeping up. Those that need to/desire to, will. Those that don't won't and hence don't have to worry.

Easily computers will be come more multidimensional products as the speed and capacities increase. These arguments against the need were had every new processor release back in the days fo the 486, and even earlier.

2005 is no biggy. If we can get to 10 ghz by then great. If we can get to 100 ghz by 2020 I'd be extremely happy. We need to keep making progress. Let's not hold ourselves back by non-innovative thinking. The more power we have in computing the more we will use--maybe not immediately, but ultimately.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Jimbo99 on 02/12/03 03:47 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 12, 2003 6:13:05 PM

>>>These arguments against the need were had every new processor release back in the days fo the 486, and even earlier.

Yeah, I seem to recall some magazine article years ago talking about the power of a 386 only being needed for servers. How things change... ;) 
February 13, 2003 2:16:29 AM

I don't think this can be applied today. We are rapidly getting less and less use out of faster cpu's because of other external peripherals which bog down the system. I mean even today, high end cpus are usefull to gamers, video and sound enthusiasts, academia and the business market. I mean at some point you will be pulling so many fps from quake 3 that it won't make a difference any more; law of diminishing returns for those of you who are interested.

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!
February 13, 2003 2:20:04 AM

but then that cpu power will be necessary when they make quake 4 (just to use this as an analogy).

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 13, 2003 2:24:54 AM

Yeah but see there are peripheral issues. Will your H/D keep up? will your graphics card keep up? More visibly, your screen is probably going to start limiting your graphics aswell. This will also need upgrading, but at some point you eyes will not be able to tell the difference between frame rates, texture mapping etc... So what then? You see intel knows this, hence HT which is meant to cater to other needs such as multitasking more than the sheer need to run UK3 at some rediculous speed.

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!
February 13, 2003 2:37:16 AM

lol, we are nowhere near that stage. HD can keep up, goto 10K, 15K rpm, then perhaps to ram drives. Graphics cards are ahead imo of cpu's in that the fastest can't be utilized to their fullest yet. It's not only games we're talking about here, and graphics can really, really improve- once games r lifelike in that people look exactly like people and there are all the minor details, and worlds are absolutely real, then games can call it quits, but until then, keep working and that'll take massive power. Furthermore, there are many more applications which cannot be processed efficiently. Take for example any NP complete problem- I dun care how fast a cpu u have, it's still gonna take a lot of time to process with increasing complexity.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 13, 2003 2:55:42 AM

No... I agree, things will get better and faster and I can't wait. I just think that we will hit a wall sometime. As for storage solutions well magnetic memory is in development right now and will probably be the next level or ram (this stuff is really fast) while I predict solid state HD's in the next few years.

BAM!...

;) 

To err is human... to really screw things up you need a computer!
February 13, 2003 3:19:22 AM

I think everyone has to respect the future game that will use 3Ghz of processing power for bot intelligence.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
February 13, 2003 3:20:22 AM

I doubt we will. Anyways, I expect within 25 years we'll be dealing with a whole new type of computing- quantum computing. That'll be fun w/ fully capable parallel processing and quantum parallelism and superpositions and the gliven (no, I don't look like professor Frink though I wish I did hehe).

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 13, 2003 4:09:44 AM

Believe it or not when computers were first released there were ppl that couldn't find much to do with them. No programs per se, no real tasks (except government, university, and research). It took a long time for the ideas for which they could be used to come to be.

Whether we are devising fewer and fewer ways to use the computer isn't really the issue since we are just talking about the way it was, and is, and always has been.

As time progresses we will do more. Not one task that requires more power but multiple tasks that require power. Each of us reading this could probably think of 10 things that we don't use the computer for that would benefit us.

Our main problem is the lack of innovative thinking that hold us back and fosters that sort of "we can't do much more" thinking.

Anyone remember starcop with box?
February 13, 2003 4:25:39 AM

Voice recognition, speech recognition, real-time realistic 3d image generation, holographics, Solitare. The day I can have my own holodeck that can simulate an environment beyond that which any of my senses can comprehend as being "fake", I will be satisfied and probably won't get out enough to upgrade anyway :) 

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
February 13, 2003 4:31:36 AM

"Nature abhors a vacuum." - FRANÇOIS RABELAIS

Nature abhors unused CPU cycles. - Sonoran
Related resources
!