PDA

View Full Version : Intel to reach 10Ghz in 2005!


gaomay
Jan 29, 2003, 07:01 AM
According to this article:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7481

Intel's Pentium family will reach over 10Ghz towards the end of 2005. Do we think IBMs 970/980/990 can keep up with this?

Chaszmyr
Jan 29, 2003, 07:28 AM
Apple might be at 3ghz by then :-P

I have faith that Apple will manage to keep up somehow...

hvfsl
Jan 29, 2003, 07:56 AM
The speed gap problems with Intel started to happen when Apple released the G3 PowerMacs. They had 350Mhz 604e PowerMacs and then went to 233Mhz G3 PowerMacs. The G3 was faster than the 604, but the G3 and G4 proccessors have not been able to keep up with Intel. They have been close and one or two times, the G3/G4 was faster than the Pentium, but because the G3/G4 do not scale very well, they have not been able to keep up with Intel recently.

So Apple needs a Proccessor that scales well and the PPC970 does not look like it.

Chad
Jan 29, 2003, 08:05 AM
sadly this is why Apple has to jump in bed with AMD or Intel
otherwise they are going to get left behind farther and farther

iAlan
Jan 29, 2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Chad
sadly this is why Apple has to jump in bed with AMD or Intel
otherwise they are going to get left behind farther and farther

If Apple have to jump in bed with AMD or Intel to keep up, well why not?

If current chip suppliers (you know who I mean) cannpt provide Apple with the best set of chips, well change suppliers.

Apple is a business, and they need to keep pace with the competition. Sure, chip speed isn't eveything, you need a stable platform with cool software, all packaged in a nice easy to use and attractive case. Apple has the later, but no matter what 'speed test' you run (biased or otherwise) the perception from the general public is speed.

Why would a 'switcher' buy a machine that has a slow chip speed (real or perceived) - Apple has to keep up, not just upgrading existing chips with step-ups in speed.

Apple needs to make some tough decisions...we Mac users are making these decisions with staying with Apple...although the new monitors, pricing and new software is a great reason to stay...

peter2002
Jan 29, 2003, 08:49 AM
Great, in 2005, Intel will finally have chip that is competitive with the dual G4.

Pete :rolleyes:

patrick0brien
Jan 29, 2003, 10:31 AM
-Hmm

It's interesting speculation on the specs. I'd like to see how they'd do it. Intel has been concentrating so much on clock speed, they've actually achieved it.

Problem: They are already knocking at the door with the power dissipation limits, and are experiencing much crosstalk. I've read items somewhere (can't remember, Geek.com I think) that we're actually going to see a slowdown in their rampups because of these problems. Even Andy Grove mentioned this. Just look at the current issues: 100 watts, 200 degrees farenheight (uncooled).

I mean, holy sh**. It's a processor, and a George Foreman Grill!

I'm sure they want to end up here, but we're awfully close to Moore's limit now. If Motorola weren't such squirrels, the PowerPC's would be pulling so far ahead due to the nature of the actual RISC architecture.

IBM, please save us.

Kid Red
Jan 29, 2003, 10:34 AM
Oh no, not 10ghz in 2 years!! What am i going to do? I can't stand this anymore, I'm going to jump off a bridge now because the chip maker for a platform that I despise and could care less about will be a few seconds faster then the platform I use and love :(

When does this become a pissing contest? I'd love to hear and female perspectives on this issue.

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 10:40 AM
Honestly I think they might be capable of reaching 10GHz by 2005 but I don't think they will. It takes a lot of money to develop faster and faster chips because by the time you are turning out a faster one the old one hasn't even paid for R&D yet. Intel said a few weeks ago that they wouldn't be pushing ther chips much over 3GHz this next year unless they got pressure from AMD.

howard
Jan 29, 2003, 10:46 AM
i have faith in IBM. They're a good company. Now how old is the G3?...pretty damn old. This chip is not even at its full potential (i'm sure you've all heard the rumors of it being clocked at like 1.2 1.3 ghz but not release cause it would be faster than the G4) its not at its full potential but it still is a pretty damn good chip, anyone with an ibook knows this. Now if they put in the time and invest in the 970 even more than they did with the G3 i think it will take apple and IBM to great places. And who knows what will happen in a few years. how much credit are you giving to that stupid inquirer article?

agreenster
Jan 29, 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
Great, in 2005, Intel will finally have chip that is competitive with the dual G4.

Pete :rolleyes:

I dont know what planet you are from...but AMD and Intel chips are significantly faster than G4's. Its rediculous how much faster they are. (and cheaper too!)

Lets look at some simple concepts:

-OSX is nicer than Windows
-Apple computers provide a significantly better user experience overall
-Video Cards Manufacturers are the same (for the most part) across the board for PCs and Macs
-Intel and AMD chips are faster than Motorolas, and they will probably continue to advance R+D to maintain superiority

So, if Apple can use ATI and NVIDIA Video cards and no one bitches, why couldnt they use AMD or Intel chips? If Apple creates a proprietary system, running on an Intel or AMD (or Hell, Ill take IBM if its fast enough), why would anyone complain??

I mean, what is it that REALLY sells Apple computers? Not speed, thats for sure. Its style, elegance, user experience, iApps, functionality, and the whole Apple goodness.

It only makes sense that Apple, who prides themselves on quality and superiority, should offer their users the superior chip. Stop denying the fact that Motorolla really isnt cutting it. No one is really fooled. No, G4's dont SUCK, but they just arent as GOOD.

And I dont believe that Apple doesnt have Marklar to make it all happen.

If you can beat em, copy em! Why not reverse engineer their chips?--theve been doing it to the Mac OS for years

MacBandit
Jan 29, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by agreenster


I dont know what planet you are from...but AMD and Intel chips are significantly faster than G4's. Its rediculous how much faster they are. (and cheaper too!

I didn't write the post you are commenting on but I get the feeling that you don't really understand the use of sarcasm.

DavidCL23
Jan 29, 2003, 11:12 AM
Do you know when intel will move all the desktop P4's over to hyperthreading processors?

pretentious
Jan 29, 2003, 11:20 AM
10 GHZ!!! OMG!!!...Oh wait, its the Inquirer... nevermind... back to what you were doing before.

Since when do ever put any thing from the Inquirer at face value?
If Intel was able to make it to 10Ghz within the next two years, and this is one big IF since this from the Inquirer, what kind of cooling elements would be on that bad boy? While you consider that, who the hell would be buying a PC with what ever kind of outrages cooling that you have decided upon?

iAlan
Jan 29, 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by agreenster


It only makes sense that Apple, who prides themselves on quality and superiority, should offer their users the superior chip. Stop denying the fact that Motorolla really isnt cutting it. No one is really fooled. No, G4's dont SUCK, but they just arent as GOOD.

And I dont believe that Apple doesnt have Marklar to make it all happen.



I don't think it is a matter of the Mac OS running on Intel based PCs. If Apple uses Intel or AMD they will be, as agreenster said, proprietry agreements - Apple made machines with Intel chips.

Mac OS on a PC box wouldn't cut it due to loss of integration at all stages - which is what Apple does now, and does well.

agreenster
Jan 29, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit


I didn't write the post you are commenting on but I get the feeling that you don't really understand the use of sarcasm.

Hard to catch sarcasm sometimes when its text--I pull that comment.

But I still think many Apple users think this way; that if it says G4, it MUST be faster.

springscansing
Jan 29, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
Great, in 2005, Intel will finally have chip that is competitive with the dual G4.

Pete :rolleyes:

... um, what? is that like triple-tier sarcasm? :-)

Megaquad
Jan 29, 2003, 01:11 PM
10GHz till end of 2005...
I dont like this!!!!

Wash!!
Jan 29, 2003, 01:50 PM
IBM had the g3 and g4 runnig at 5+ghz but it needs liquid nitrogen to keep them cool.

yosoyjay
Jan 29, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Wash!!
IBM had the g3 and g4 runnig at 5+ghz but it needs liquid nitrogen to keep them cool.

I would like a link to that information please.

zarathustra
Jan 29, 2003, 02:25 PM
This reminds me of Conan O'Brien:

In the year 2005 *hums melody of "in the year 2000*...

Cattle will run wild when cowboys realize chaps look kinda gay.

By the year 2005 we might have only a 4 Ghz PPC970/980/990 chip, but it might have an architecture that's uncomprehensible today. It will have an insane throughput with a totally new way of doing "computer talk".

Intel already shot themselves in the foot by accentuating the Hz rating - now they are stuck around 3.5-4 Ghz. So assuming they keep going in the same direction, just wamping up speed, but not radically redesigning the whole system, they will have a really fast, aging, unefficient chip.

Backtothemac
Jan 29, 2003, 02:42 PM
Agreenster,
my iMac G3 500 runs photoshop faster than the wifes PIII 1GHZ. 1/2 the speed and it is faster at loading, running filters, etc.
So, don't believe the hype ;)

Wash!!
Jan 29, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by yosoyjay


I would like a link to that information please.
No link got a friend in the "inside"

MrMacMan
Jan 29, 2003, 04:25 PM
Acually this is total BS.

Lie one: Intel Chip roadmap states inless forced by AMD intel will not release a chip any, ANY higher than 3.6-4.0 GHZ.
Look there are MANY issues dealing with the current P4's, like heat.

Many people don't understand that as you make chips go faster and faster and don't lower the nanometers then it will give off heat.

Sure, intel could release the 3.6 GHZ chip tommorow, but it would probably need some massive water cooling while running.

Heck in theory (tom's hardware) too the intel 3.6 and got it up to 4 GHZ but they needs the chip to be frozen (way frozen, -52 C). This is just impossible for any consumer to accept.

Shoot my foot if I'm wrong but a well over 6 GHZ gap in 2 years is very, very insane.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 29, 2003, 04:50 PM
I can see the January headlines for 2005=== MOTOROLA HAS JUST ANOUNCED THAT THEY HAVE BROKEN THE 2 GIG BARRIER====meanwhile on page 2 INTEL announces its been secretly working on a 15GHZ chip. sorry couldnt help myself!

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 29, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Chaszmyr
Apple might be at 3ghz by then :-P

I have faith that Apple will manage to keep up somehow... The only way that will happen is if they get the hell away from motorola!

cubist
Jan 29, 2003, 07:10 PM
Intel's definitely between a rock and a hard place. They got to 3.06G by making a long, long, long cache. The P4's not going to go much faster without liquid nitrogen. Now they want to move server people to Itanium, but surprise! It's only 1GHz, and it's completely incompatible. 32-bit machine code runs like a 33MHz 486. You can recompile all your apps and run on HP's Unix...

Meanwhile AMD is working on the Hammer, a 64-bit CPU with 32-bit code compatibility. It can run 32-bit machine code fast. But surprise! It's only 1.2GHz (1.8GHz? Who knows, it's not out yet). Hence the return of the old Cyrix "PR" numbers.

Intel wants to steal the Hammer's thunder (hm, sounds like Thor) but they'll probably end up having to swallow their pride and license it.

Meantime, GHz numbers will go the "PR" route and become completely mythical.

Solution for Apple? Hey, we can play the "PR" game too! That dual 1.4, let's call it "PR-3300"!
:p

MrMacMan
Jan 29, 2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by cubist
Intel's definitely between a rock and a hard place. They got to 3.06G by making a long, long, long cache. The P4's not going to go much faster without liquid nitrogen. Now they want to move server people to Itanium, but surprise! It's only 1GHz, and it's completely incompatible. 32-bit machine code runs like a 33MHz 486. You can recompile all your apps and run on HP's Unix...

Meanwhile AMD is working on the Hammer, a 64-bit CPU with 32-bit code compatibility. It can run 32-bit machine code fast. But surprise! It's only 1.2GHz (1.8GHz? Who knows, it's not out yet). Hence the return of the old Cyrix "PR" numbers.

Intel wants to steal the Hammer's thunder (hm, sounds like Thor) but they'll probably end up having to swallow their pride and license it.

Meantime, GHz numbers will go the "PR" route and become completely mythical.

Solution for Apple? Hey, we can play the "PR" game too! That dual 1.4, let's call it "PR-3300"!
:p

Nah we need to repackage everything like... Apple Currently shipping 2000+ Dual Processor PowerMacs *

* Does not equal to GHZ.

digitalgiant
Jan 29, 2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Wash!!

No link got a friend in the "inside"
Booooooo and lame,,,,sure you did,,,,but where did he get HIS info? My grandmother told my mom who told my sister,,,who told me that Santa Claus is for real,,,,really. Bla Bla Bla. please note that this not an attack on YOU. Have a great day!!

law guy
Jan 29, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by gaomay
According to this article:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7481

Intel's Pentium family will reach over 10Ghz towards the end of 2005. Do we think IBMs 970/980/990 can keep up with this?

The Intel roadmap has a 32-bit chip: Code Name Nehalem , running at 6 GHz in 2005. Of course, at that point, a 32-bit chip will be simply slower because it won't be capable of running the 64-bit version of Windows now in development for AMD's 64-bit offering (AMD's chip is scheduled for Q1 2003). Some of Intel's other offerings will actually regress a bit in speed as they are redesigned for better efficiency.

It's hard to conceive of at this point, but a 32-bit chip at 6GHz is bound to have a long-ass pipeline and need all of those ticks to keep up with much slower speed, short pipeline chips. It will - as noted - be less efficient than a 64-bit competitor running 64-bit optimized software. It - in any case - will be 4 GHz slower than 10 GHz.

Look to Intel's high end (or IBM for that matter) for true state-of-the-art, you'll see they abandon clock-speed advertising with the Itanium 2 - a 1GHz chip with up-to 3mb of L3 cache (moving to 64-bit and 6mb L3 cache in the third quarter of 2003, the release season for our long-awaited IBM and Motorola unveilings).

mac15
Jan 29, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Agreenster,
my iMac G3 500 runs photoshop faster than the wifes PIII 1GHZ. 1/2 the speed and it is faster at loading, running filters, etc.
So, don't believe the hype ;)

that is the worst line anyone can come up with to defend an apple CPU, the fact of the matter is who runs photoshop on a daily basis, how many philters do you want or need to do. For the average joe who wants a computer for chat, internet and games a PC is by far a better choice by price and speed, saying duh my mac runs photoshop better than a PC is plain dumb, if mac want to catch up, they need to jump on IBMs new PPC 970 or an intel/AMD platform, I don't mind if my macs got a pentium in it. F it does what I want with speed, then I'll be happy

Chad
Jan 29, 2003, 10:01 PM
I am waiting for 64 bit cpus and more pipeline bigger cache etc...

or 128 bit cpus ;) like 10 gigs cache pipelines to match and 30K HD that have enough bandwith to transfer ;)
things such as that would be cool ;)

Catfish_Man
Jan 29, 2003, 10:05 PM
Something to remember is that Intel is having trouble cooling the P4 on .13 micron. At .09, or .065 (which iirc, is what Nehalem should be, perhaps it was .045), they'll be able to get a good deal higher. Of course, a dual core, 2MB on chip cache 4-5GHz 970 derivative should do just find too :). Or maybe a CELL derivative with like 12 cores or something.