PDA

View Full Version : 15GHZ Pentium "5"


peter2002
Oct 23, 2002, 01:06 PM
Intel VP & CTO Pat Gelsinger said a 15GHZ Pentium "5" will be here by 2010. The current P4 will top out at 10GHZ. 5GHZ PDAs will be here by 2010 too.

At the current rate increase of about 200MHZ per year, Macs will be probably hitting about 3-4GHZ, maybe 5GHZ by 2010, unless Apple ports Max OS to x86.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5887

vniow
Oct 23, 2002, 01:14 PM
Funny how all these news articles are showing up in the Community section.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/winky.gif

2010 is a long wayz away, but if the 3Ghz PIV (V?) with Hyperthreading is going to cost you a whopping $650 for 1 chip, just imagine what a 15ghz will cost.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/eek21.gif

Over Achiever
Oct 23, 2002, 02:21 PM
Somebody move this to the current events section!!!;)

Anyway, costs will always go down...the cost of a 10 GHz chip won't be too bad in ten years...

drastik
Oct 23, 2002, 02:39 PM
Intel is just buying time. The way I've heard it wround here, they can't scale their current P5 beyond 1.5 ghz or so and get any usable yield. Intel has killed themselves with the mhz marketing, they can't scale the pIV much further, it's already tweaked for max clock, it'll just get hotter and produce less yield.

Inel has a real habit of predicting the future, right now they should worry about their stock prices.

diorio
Oct 23, 2002, 03:34 PM
Yep it seems everyone is noticing all of these current event articles in Community Discussion. There seems to be a new one every day, about The Sun to Supernova! or Man to play Computer in Chess tournament. Give us a break.

You realize the Inquirer is a tabloid right?

Noobie
Jan 25, 2009, 03:39 AM
Intel VP & CTO Pat Gelsinger said a 15GHZ Pentium "5" will be here by 2010. The current P4 will top out at 10GHZ. 5GHZ PDAs will be here by 2010 too.

At the current rate increase of about 200MHZ per year, Macs will be probably hitting about 3-4GHZ, maybe 5GHZ by 2010, unless Apple ports Max OS to x86.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5887

wander if we will ever hit even 10Ghz.. :)
But atleast Mac OS X has been ported to x86..

Metatron
Jan 25, 2009, 04:22 AM
Usually bumping old threads is a waste of time...but this one is interesting to look back on. They made it...in a way...10 Ghz has been kind of achieved by a 2.5 Ghz quad core processor...

ReanimationLP
Jan 25, 2009, 05:21 AM
Hahaha.

Requires a 2kw PSU to power the computer and a refrigeration unit attached to cool it.

Netburst sucked.

nick9191
Jan 25, 2009, 05:27 AM
Ah remember when Ghz was actually relevant to speed :D

Hilarious find.

Analog Kid
Jan 25, 2009, 05:33 AM
Wow, it's actually kind of frightening that Intel has a CTO that gets the basic physics that wrong. They (and about everyone else) hit the wall at 3GHz.

neonblue2
Jan 25, 2009, 07:33 AM
Wow, it's actually kind of frightening that Intel has a CTO that gets the basic physics that wrong. They (and about everyone else) hit the wall at 3GHz.

It's actually more like 3.8GHz (the highest stock clock I've ever seen) but you're right.

P-Worm
Jan 25, 2009, 12:51 PM
Haha. This thread is awesome.

P-Worm

Aea
Jan 25, 2009, 03:13 PM
Pure GHZ wise no, but I'm sure a high end Quad will outperform the 15 Ghz P5 envisioned by that article.

Abstract
Jan 25, 2009, 04:37 PM
I think society owes us citizens a flux capacitor in every vehicle. What happened, Doc Brown, you lazy git?

notjustjay
Jan 25, 2009, 04:50 PM
I think society owes us citizens a flux capacitor in every vehicle. What happened, Doc Brown, you lazy git?

I'm waiting for my garbage-powered Mr. Fusion :eek:

JG271
Jan 25, 2009, 04:59 PM
Truly epic thread resurrection!:D

DoFoT9
Jan 25, 2009, 05:10 PM
well we are 1 year away from 2010... any sign of a 15GHZ p5???



NO!!!!


lol this is hilarious. nice find somebody :p

mkrishnan
Jan 25, 2009, 05:14 PM
I'm quite amused by the idea of a 5GHz PDA running on a Pentium processor, also. :)

Excellent necro, Noobie. I applaud you.

xparaparafreakx
Jan 25, 2009, 06:27 PM
This is awesome resurrection.

Maybe he talking about an iPhone at 5GHz.

NT1440
Jan 25, 2009, 06:30 PM
Sweet, I've always wanted to be burned to death by my processor!:rolleyes:

Analog Kid
Jan 25, 2009, 06:47 PM
Pure GHZ wise no, but I'm sure a high end Quad will outperform the 15 Ghz P5 envisioned by that article.
Here's one of the reasons I get irritated by pipe-dream predictions like that coming from such an influential source-- an 8 core 2GHz machine could be almost as fast as a 15GHz single core machine if you write the software properly. Right now we're facing a dearth of well written software, and we may have been in better shape if the worlds leading microprocessor provider made a bigger deal out of the need to start writing multithreaded applications 6 and a half years ago.

queshy
Jan 25, 2009, 07:10 PM
holy Thread Resurrection!

sushi
Jan 25, 2009, 07:17 PM
Most interesting thread resurrection.

A 15Ghz P5 next year. Wow! Forgot just how intense the Ghz wars were.

Thankfully we've gotten beyond that.

Still, a 5Ghz PDA would be nice! :)

Dagless
Jan 25, 2009, 08:34 PM
unless Apple ports Max OS to x86.

apple will NEVR do that

Davy.Shalom
Jan 25, 2009, 08:47 PM
This makes me laugh.

Consultant
Jan 25, 2009, 08:49 PM
Most interesting thread resurrection.

A 15Ghz P5 next year. Wow! Forgot just how intense the Ghz wars were.

Thankfully we've gotten beyond that.

Still, a 5Ghz PDA would be nice! :)

Keep in mind iPhone has a faster processor than the high end computers of 10 years ago... In 10 years you never know what will happen.

However 4ghz mass production is not even achieved yet...

alphaod
Jan 25, 2009, 09:08 PM
Holy thread resurrection Batman!

iParis
Jan 25, 2009, 09:20 PM
Holy thread resurrection Batman!

+12391723177

Way to skip seven years!
And I love how none of the things mentioned seem close to happening.

kwood
Jan 25, 2009, 10:45 PM
Holy thread resurrection Batman!

At least the thread resurrector acknowledges the fact they went back 7 years. It wasn't just a blind comment on a topic they searched for.

iParis
Jan 25, 2009, 10:49 PM
At least the thread resurrector acknowledges the fact they went back 7 years. It wasn't just a blind comment on a topic they searched for.

I hate when that happens. Although, this poster was smarter than that.

sushi
Jan 25, 2009, 11:15 PM
Keep in mind iPhone has a faster processor than the high end computers of 10 years ago... In 10 years you never know what will happen.
True, the iPhone has more capability in many areas such as processing, RAM, total storage space, graphics, interface, etc. than computers 10 years ago!

And advancements will only become faster! :)

dllavaneras
Jan 25, 2009, 11:18 PM
It's interesting to see that in the last 48 hours this thread has gotten more replies than in the previous 6 and something years ;)

SactoGuy18
Jan 25, 2009, 11:55 PM
I think the original article was based on speeding up the Pentium 4 core as fast as possible.

What changed EVERYTHING was Intel's decision to use the Pentium III-M core with its large on-die L2 memory cache as the basis for its future CPU architecture--the result was the breakthrough Core 2 CPU family, which offered a huge leap up in performance compared to even the Pentium 4 but with much lower power consumption.

GSMiller
Jan 26, 2009, 12:37 PM
It's interesting to see that in the last 48 hours this thread has gotten more replies than in the previous 6 and something years ;)

You beat me to it :p

Analog Kid
Jan 26, 2009, 01:02 PM
I think the original article was based on speeding up the Pentium 4 core as fast as possible.

What changed EVERYTHING was Intel's decision to use the Pentium III-M core with its large on-die L2 memory cache as the basis for its future CPU architecture--the result was the breakthrough Core 2 CPU family, which offered a huge leap up in performance compared to even the Pentium 4 but with much lower power consumption.
No, what changed EVERYTHING was leakage. Intel spent a good long time at 3GHz and never could get past it. If you remember, there was about 2 years where the Earth stood still.

Core 2 was plan B.

That's one of the things about this quote that I find most nefarious-- he made these comments in October 2002 when they were already running at the 3GHz wall. He knew. In the previous 2 years, they'd doubled clock rates. Over the next two years they manage to gain 20%. This was an attempt to appear out in front of AMD, plain and simple. He lied to undercut a competitor.

ou lumberjack
Jan 28, 2009, 02:46 PM
what an awesome thread!

Thycid
Sep 1, 2010, 02:02 AM
don't mean to bump this thread again, but where the hell are our pentium 5's?

DoFoT9
Sep 1, 2010, 04:04 AM
don't mean to bump this thread again, but where the hell are our pentium 5's?

HA! they have been replaced by the i3's basically. there are still some pentium based CPUs available. very low end.

Chundles
Sep 1, 2010, 04:07 AM
don't mean to bump this thread again, but where the hell are our pentium 5's?

Bugger that, where's my flying car?!

DoFoT9
Sep 1, 2010, 05:17 AM
Bugger that, where's my flying car?!

dont feel stalked, but i was thinking about you the other day/

Voidness
Sep 1, 2010, 09:56 AM
Where's my 5GHz Apple iPDA? ;)

Lord Blackadder
Sep 1, 2010, 11:09 AM
Who would've thought that 8 years later we'd still be hovering around 3Ghz, and in fact that most PCs would be running in the 2-3GHz range?

millar876
Sep 1, 2010, 11:32 AM
Screw your penguin 5s I wand my PowerBook G5

Schtumple
Sep 1, 2010, 11:38 AM
Bugger that, where's my flying car?!

Pft, where's my Robin Williams Bicentennial Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_(film))?

juanm
Sep 1, 2010, 01:17 PM
Pft, where's my Robin Williams Bicentennial Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_(film))?

It's Asimov's, not Williams'.

Edit: sorry, I get what you meant, you want the actual Robin Williams model...

Shacklebolt
Sep 1, 2010, 01:21 PM
Ha - this is probably one of the reasons why macs gained so much market share: the ghz gap just kind of stalled.

runplaysleeprun
Sep 1, 2010, 02:46 PM
d-d-d-d-d-d-double thread resurrection!

In all fairness, though, drastik was right on back in 2002...

jav6454
Sep 1, 2010, 02:54 PM
d-d-d-d-d-d-double thread resurrection!

In all fairness, though, drastik was right on back in 2002...

You can't add GHz on a Hexa, Quad or Dual core CPU. You can only scale up the less time it takes (in seconds) to complete a task in reference to the overall clock.

RawBert
Sep 1, 2010, 03:28 PM
Funny. Looks like we're gonna see 15-Core processors before 15 GHz.

Counterfit
Sep 1, 2010, 03:37 PM
Ha - this is probably one of the reasons why macs gained so much market share: the ghz gap just kind of stalled.

Rather, Apple switched sides so that the gap didn't matter.

dal20402
Sep 1, 2010, 04:23 PM
Today's quad-core processors are faster than a single-core, 15 GHz NetBurst would have been. Even the dual-cores are close.

Dagless
Sep 2, 2010, 05:47 AM
I love this site.

velocityg4
Sep 2, 2010, 08:45 AM
Today's quad-core processors are faster than a single-core, 15 GHz NetBurst would have been. Even the dual-cores are close.

When multi-tasking CPU intensive apps or using apps that can efficiently utilize all cores. As many just use a single core a 15Ghz NetBurst would trounce the heftiest i7's with those programs.

Though for the most part it seems software requirements have slowed as well, otherwise the iPad would not be possible. A 3Ghz P4 with 1GB of RAM and a 40GB Hard Drive running XP will still quickly do tasks that many people ask out of a computer.

devinci99
Sep 2, 2010, 09:36 AM
We're Q3 2010; where's the 15GHZ processor?

'Pentium' was not only a platform/architecture, but its just a marketing label.

For all I care, they can call the next CPU Pentium 5; though it might bring a negative ring to it. Regardless, I'm looking at you Intel to give me a 15 GHZ per core processor! And it better use 65W.

:D

dmr727
Sep 2, 2010, 11:02 AM
For all I care, they can call the next CPU Pentium 5

I'm sure they won't - the Pentium 4 was a slow, miserable disaster of a CPU. When companies crap the bed that bad - it's time for a complete name change!

devinci99
Sep 2, 2010, 11:13 AM
I'm sure they won't - the Pentium 4 was a slow, miserable disaster of a CPU. When companies crap the bed that bad - it's time for a complete name change!

True.

But the Pentium 4 started out pretty strong and good. It wasn't truly until AMD unleash their AMD64 Althlons and Windows XP 64bit that the Pentium 4 started showing limitation.

Pentium, Pentium II, and Pentium III were decent.

Too bad the last batch of P4's ruined the Pentium brand. It shows it takes billions to develop a brand, and how quickly it can get tarnish by a few bad apples.

holmesf
Sep 2, 2010, 01:36 PM
Looking back it makes me wonder, did Intel seriously think this 15GHz chip was going to happen? The dude must have known that the limits of out of order and speculative execution would imply that the future belonged to single chip multiprocessors. And beyond that, could he seriously have been so blind to the power and heat problems that were up ahead? So was he really that shortsighted, or was he being disingenuous?