Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:47:27 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 08:27:55, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 04:42:21, Charles Worthington wrote: > >>I am certainly no expert on cpu design and waht you say makes perfect sense from >>an economic standpoint. > >Please explain this to Bob then, because he seems to think it's madness. When, >in reality, it is simple economic principle, and widely known as such. > >But, if todays chips were honestly capable of a stable >>4GHz frequency then you could clock them there with no additional cooling >>required. I do not doubt that todays chips can be taken to 3.2 GHz or perhaps >>even 3.3 GHz and maintain stability but intel has a safety margin built into the >>upper end chips to insure reliable performance. But even with little knowledge >>of processor design I would have to say that Bob's argument makes more sense >>from a logical standpoint. Intel would_love_to produce 4GHz Xeons today that >>operate at low temperatures...problem is they simply can't do it. At least in my >>humble opinion. > >I'm not saying that the current chips they sell are capable of 4GHz operation, >in any way, shape, or form. I'm saying that Intel, if it wanted, _could_ >release chips that were capable of such thing. But right now, there's just >absolutely no reason for them to do it. For one thing, Intel doesn't want the >P4 Xeons to be _too_ fast if it can help it, because they don't want to eat into >Itanium sales. That logic is circular. They can make faster xeons but they can't make faster Itaniums???
This page took 0.01 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.