Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › How come we're still at 2.0+ Ghz?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How come we're still at 2.0+ Ghz? - Page 3

post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcedEarth View Post
C'mon you know what he meant. He was just saying 6ghz isn't important anymore if you have a 3Ghz processor doing more operations per clock that actually beats a 5Ghz processor.

You knew what he meant, you was just trying to start a debate
No he didn't the kid was stating wrong information. A "CPU educated" person could properly interpret this, but we're not talking to people who are entirely educated.

Duckie made rightful corrections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhill2029 View Post
Why are you more or less quoting me on things i haven't said?
Because you DID say that. Just in a way that omits a large portion of the statement and causes confusion instead of certainty.
Bye Bye 775
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.5GHz ASUS P8P67 PRO MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition  2x4gb Ripjaws@1866MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
840Pro 128 | 3xWD Vraptor | 1.5TB Green LG 6X Blu-ray /HD-DVD combo Win7 Ultimate 64bit 2 x U2311H 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G710+ Corsair HX620 Corsair 600t Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
Bye Bye 775
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.5GHz ASUS P8P67 PRO MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition  2x4gb Ripjaws@1866MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
840Pro 128 | 3xWD Vraptor | 1.5TB Green LG 6X Blu-ray /HD-DVD combo Win7 Ultimate 64bit 2 x U2311H 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G710+ Corsair HX620 Corsair 600t Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.S. View Post
Current copper pathways , and as Duckie states transistors ,cannot exceed certain thresholds, we have almost met these thresholds
And, as cirtical dimentions become smaller (i.e 65 nm, 45 nm, and eventually 32, 22 and 12 nm), these thresholds become smaller. As the die's become smaller, the line-widths remain about the same, but the move closer together, as do the transistors. As this happens, they interfere with each other, and create 'leakage', or efficiency losses which translate into heat. Slowing down the chip is one way to reduce these losses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.S. View Post
DARPA has spend like 50 million to SUN to develop new laser conducter paths.
As a side note to this, IBM has developed a MEMS-based photo-switching array, to be used in light-based processors. These are little mirrors that can repositioned to direct a light pulse within a chip. That pulse becomes the data bit, as opposed to an electric pulse. Wild stuff for the future...

As for overall performance, here's a simple way to look at it: If you assume that architecture efficiencies remain constant, Core 2 duo at 3G provides (2x3=) 6G of bandwidth, where a quad core at 2.5G provides (4x2.5=) 10G of bandwidth. Add to this the increased efficiencies of the system, and you get even more out of it.
D' Rigg
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.4 Gigabye GA-X38-DS4 Saphire 3870, Crossfire 4x1 DDR2 1066 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
150 Gig Western Digital Raptor Windows XP 32 Bit Dell 24" Widescreen Logitech G11 Gaming 
PowerCase
RAIDMAX RX-700SS 700 Watt Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA 
  hide details  
Reply
D' Rigg
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.4 Gigabye GA-X38-DS4 Saphire 3870, Crossfire 4x1 DDR2 1066 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
150 Gig Western Digital Raptor Windows XP 32 Bit Dell 24" Widescreen Logitech G11 Gaming 
PowerCase
RAIDMAX RX-700SS 700 Watt Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by phospholipid View Post
shortage of flux capacitors.
1.21 JIGAWATTS!!!
Callisto
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K 4.7ghz @ 1.37v MSI P67A-GD65 EVGA GTX 680 Mushkin Enhanced Redline 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel SSD 40GB; Seagate Cavier Green 1TB Scientific Linux 6.3/Windoze7 22" Samsung SyncMaster 2232BW Corsair TX850 
  hide details  
Reply
Callisto
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K 4.7ghz @ 1.37v MSI P67A-GD65 EVGA GTX 680 Mushkin Enhanced Redline 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel SSD 40GB; Seagate Cavier Green 1TB Scientific Linux 6.3/Windoze7 22" Samsung SyncMaster 2232BW Corsair TX850 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 24
Heat is also a factor to take into concern. If you speed up the clocks too much, you need more power, and therefor you increase heat output. Its more reasonable to make the chip more efficient than sheer mindless powerful.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9000 Uh, iunno SLI 280m 6GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
500gb Raid0 Windows 7 64bit 17" 1920x1200 Logitech MK700 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Alienware M17X body Logitech G9 Xtrac Ripper 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9000 Uh, iunno SLI 280m 6GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
500gb Raid0 Windows 7 64bit 17" 1920x1200 Logitech MK700 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Alienware M17X body Logitech G9 Xtrac Ripper 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › How come we're still at 2.0+ Ghz?