LOW COST 10GHZ CHIPS?!?!?!

[Grizely1]

HOLY CRAP!! JUST READ THE ARTICLE ON IBM'S NEW THING THEY FOUND OUT! HOLY CRAP!!!!!! THAT'S TOTALLY INSANE

 

[Kodiak]

yeah... in 5 to 10 years according to press release... Intel said the same thing last week...
Wasn't that expected?
We came from 10Mhz to 1000Mhz in 20 years -- a 100 times increase. Why are you surprised that we'd make another 10 times increase in another decade? I'm puzzled...

 

[Guest]

I think we'll hit 2-2.5 GHz by July to August and maybe 2.8-3.0 GHz by the end of next year. Then we'll find some kind of better manufacturing method and hit up to 8 - 10GHz the year after that. 10GHz in 10 years is, in my opinion, too conservative. I would think that 4 years would be the longest amount of time. It seems processors maintain a ratio of improvement.

Charles

 

[Kodiak]

Even less reason to be surprised by IBM's announcement
However, I think 4 years to 10Ghz is a bit optimistic... I think 6-8 years is more likely... these things get harder as they get smaller... every now and then they hit a limit when they have to invent new technologies to break a size barrier -- and those breakthroughs are not as easily predictable as simple refining of existing process... but I think one of those board frequenters who work at AMD/Intel/IBM/wherever could clue us in a wee bit more

(not to say it wouldn't be kool to have 10Ghz machine in 3-4 years, but come on, then my current purchase of 1Gig machine is just gonna make me foolish

(then again, my 233Mhz purchase 2.5 years ago is just as foolish too

 

[yoda271828]

I've read that processor clock speed doubles every 18 months. Lately it seems more like 15-16 months though.

 

[girish]

10 GHz is cool! but i dont think they will be in the market even 10 yrs down the line. i read intel working on 0.13 micron and 0.07 micron process and chips working at less than 1 V. it would need new materials and new processes to make those, and i dont see >5GHz before 2006, five years since now! 10 GHz might take twice as long!!

girish

 

[Guest]

Let me see, from 4.7 MHz to 12.81 MHz. That was the jump from 8088 to 80286, I believe. Then came the 386 with 14MHz (Single-wide) and then 25 (Single-wide and double-wide), and so on... Things really picked up. That's why I feel the 10GHz processor isn't too far off. At this point, it seems pretty freaking impressive. Especially for those of us who were using the old old systems (like Commodore 64, Apple IIe, etc...). I can still respect what a GHz is. But 4 MHz was VERY impressive when it first came out.

Charles

 

[Guest]

the .13 micron will be a copper-process.
IMO 5Ghz will launch before 2004.
do you still remember the proc. speed at the beginning of this year?

i think the system bus speed should have a <b>MAJOR</b> improvement before the 10Ghz era arrives. (no RDRAM pls.!!)

<font color=orange>What do you think? </font color=orange>

 

[Guest]

Of course, I agree that the FSB will be a major bottle-neck until they get something above and beyond 100MHz and 133MHz FSB. In my opinion, they should already be up to 150 and 166MHz FSB. The 200MHz AMD bus should be a real 200MHz FSB, not double-pumped 100. Oh well, enough of that gripe. Suffice to say, I wish somebody would focus a bit more on the chipsets to catch them up to the processors. The current processors have even more power than they are given credit for. Unfortunately, there aren't any especially efficient and powerful chipsets out for them. 815 is the "best" for Intel, even though it barely beats the age-old 440BX and KT133 is the best for AMD (non-DDR) even though it clearly could be better. It's a shame...

Charles

 

[yoda271828]

Now lets not forget about quantum computers. IBM displayed a working 5 qubit (quantum bit) quantum computer last August. They are expected to hit consumer markets in the next ten years. A quantum computer could beat the hell out of any silicon computer. They are expected to eventually be millions of times more powerful than silicon computers.

 

[Guest]

I read a release from Intel that said they could have the .003 micron process up and running in 5 years . and 10ghz
not long after that. When the Intel .13 micron process
comes out it might have copper interconnects but it wont be
an all copper processor. Thats what Intel says anyway

 

[Guest]

Oh ya an Official Intel press release stated that we will see 12GHZ by 2006.
But memory technology will really have to pick up or their
high MHZ processors will be redundant.
Thats why they want to invest more in memory technologys.

 

[AmdMELTDOWN]

well, if amd puppies are crying about intel's prices now, Imagine when this becomes true reality.

 

[Grizely1]

Why would AMD followers be crying about Intel's prices? We dont' care, we're not the ones buying Intel's stuff. We're actually happy because more people buy AMD. It's better for us.

 

[jg38141]

true grizley. We could care less about intel's high prices. In response to an earlier post though- someone said we've been slowing down in chip speed upgrades, but we went from an athlon 500's release in march of '99 or earlier and by mid 2000 we had giga chips. and now in december 1.5ghz. We're not slowing down.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"

 

[girish]

the release read 0.03 micron and not 0.003 microns. they might make processors with 0.13 or 0.07 microns in 5 years but I doubt they will run a 5 GHz or more. realistically, 2-3 GHz is what I expect. It might take more than 10-12 years for a 10 GHz+ processor to come. The technology might not use aluminium or copper interconnects, it might use a newer material than silicon (like the GaAs Gallium Arsenide).

It will take a lot of time.

girish

 

[Guest]

<b>> It might take more than 10-12 years for a 10 GHz+ processor to come. </b>

Really? My guess is that you will be embarrased by these words come 2011.

 

[girish]

hope so!
but dont try to pull the graph along a straight line!!!!!
current technology is near saturation, and new one is needed.
i would be happy to be embarrassed by 2011 if I have a 12 GHz computer on my desk!

girish