Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 01:44:55 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 01:56:26, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >On December 16, 2002 at 19:55:47, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On December 16, 2002 at 18:35:21, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >> >>>On December 16, 2002 at 18:18:19, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >>> >>>>On December 16, 2002 at 17:42:08, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 16, 2002 at 07:48:59, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>>>>On December 16, 2002 at 04:52:40, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>Intel could produce a microprocessor capable of 10 Ghz very soon, but they >>>>>>>simply won't because they have to profit gradually from 3Ghz to 4 Ghz to 5Ghz >>>>>>>etc... Simply the Murphy LAW is a profitable marketing strategy that has worked >>>>>>>gradually, if they make the mistake of producing a microprocessor capable of 10 >>>>>>>Ghz in the next 6 months they will lose a lot of money, by NOT squeezing our >>>>>>>pockets every six months as they have done for the last 20 years. >>>>>> >>>>>>excellent point. >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, no, it's far from excellent, actually the reasoning is invalid. Intel has >>>>>competition, and that means that if they could churn out faster processors (at >>>>>reasonable costs) but doesn't, AMD or someone else would do it and take over >>>>>Intels market shares and profits. >>>>> >>>>>/Jesper >>>> >>>>Right, if Intel and AMD don't make an agreement to go for the smaller steps to >>>>make more profit together. This would be against law. Great law! ;) >>>> >>>>Alessandro >>> >>>Yes. :-) And also, for such a conspiracy not to be obvious (and get police >>>attention), IBM, Compaq, Sun etc has to be in on it too, because it would look >>>peculiar if PowerPCs, StrongARMs, Alphas and SPARCs suddenly turned up at 10 >>>GHz, but the same didn't happen on the x86 market. >>> >>>/Jesper >> >>No it wouldn't. > >Yes it would. > >>MHz is only relevant within a design. There exist 10 GHz >>processors right now. > >Any of them one of the processors I mentioned? Otherwise your point is moot. Sparc is considerably different from Intel. I have done assembly for both machines. Sparc, Alpha, and PPC are RISC chips. RISC designs can reach higher clock frequencies than CISC chips since they don't have to do as much per cycle. Hearsay has it that Alpha is dead and Apple may as well be. I would be suprised if any of the processors you listed showed up at 10 GHz even when Intel and AMD are competing with 10 GHz processors, assuming they can scale that far. >>Also, consider Itanium which runs around 800 MHz. Seems >>slow? It outperforms a Pentium 4 3.06 GHz. IBM has a 125 MHz processor which >>will outperform ~1 GHz x86 chips. AthlonXP 2700 runs at 2.17 GHz and is roughly >>as fast as a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz. > >Yes. > >> >>Whether or not AMD and Intel have a private agreement is speculation; however, I >>find it more than curious that they release new chips at the same time. > >That kind of adaptions I don't find curious at all. > >>Also >>interesting is that the P4 3.06 GHz is the same silicon that my roommate has >>inside his Pentium 4 1.8 GHz chip. > >No, it's not the same. It may seem the same and have the same function, and even >have the same design, but most likely, the 3 GHz chip is produced with better >quality (purity, exactness and so on). > >>Bottom line: Intel was able run 3 GHz last year, but they've waited a year to >>release it to the general public. There's something to speculate about. > >They weren't able to run at 3 GHz reliably and in quantity last year. The >fine-tune production processes until the yield and quality goes up. Last year >they couldn't have churned out a lot of 3 GHz processors. > >/Jesper You sure? A friend of mine clocked a 1.5 GHz Williamette to 2.5 GHz. Some even clocked to 3 GHz on Williamette. I've heard of earlier Palomino-core AthlonXPs clocking BEYOND the rates AMD will stamp on them now. Another friend of mine religiously babbled about clocking his Thunderbird 1 GHz chip to 1.7 GHz (read: AthlonXP 2000 equivalency) when 1.4 GHz Thunderbirds were the best you could buy. He could have debatably gone further if he had more multipliers to work with. Additionally, my roommate has clocked his P4 1.8 GHz to 2.4 GHz, but his pc2100 ram couldn't sustain 177 MHz. I also know someone who is running an AthlonXP around 2.6 GHz. When he bought the chip, the fastest available was AthlonXP 2400 (2 GHz). You still can't buy a 2.6 GHz AthlonXP. Hmm... How is it that AMD and Intel have such problems clocking their chips high when nobody else has problems clocking them that high? -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.