Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 14, 2004, 08:17 PM   #1
MacBytes
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Intel Cancels Top-Speed 4Ghz Pentium 4 Chip


Category: Microsoft
Link: Intel Cancels Top-Speed 4Ghz Pentium 4 Chip
Posted on MacBytes.com

Approved by Mudbug
MacBytes is offline   0
Old Oct 14, 2004, 09:21 PM   #2
paulypants
macrumors 6502a
 
paulypants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Buffalo, NY
aaaaawwwwww...

paulypants is offline   0
Old Oct 14, 2004, 09:37 PM   #3
Dr. Dastardly
macrumors 65816
 
Dr. Dastardly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I live in a giant bucket!
I'm just glad these companies are FINALLY figuring out its not just about clock speed.
Dr. Dastardly is offline   0
Old Oct 14, 2004, 10:59 PM   #4
nagromme
macrumors G4
 
nagromme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
They're working on dual-core instead, aiming for next year. Not unlike a certain Power-series chipmaker...
nagromme is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 01:10 AM   #5
Timelessblur
Banned
 
Timelessblur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
I might like to point out them mac theroical speed of a cpu is something like 5-6 ghz and the close you get to that wall the hard it is going to be to go faster
Timelessblur is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 02:36 AM   #6
isgoed
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timelessblur
I might like to point out them mac theroical speed of a cpu is something like 5-6 ghz and the close you get to that wall the hard it is going to be to go faster
The theoretical speed of a transostor lies at about 200Ghz. Of a cpu that will not be as high, but certainly higher than 6Ghz.

I don't understand what the problem is with 4Ghz. Overclockers were able to achieve 6Ghz (windows stable). It seems strange that those 200mhz or %5 increase pose a threshold.

Finally: why is this placed under topic "microsoft"?
isgoed is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 02:43 AM   #7
Analog Kid
macrumors 68030
 
Analog Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timelessblur
I might like to point out them mac theroical speed of a cpu is something like 5-6 ghz and the close you get to that wall the hard it is going to be to go faster
Funny, they said that theoretically it was impossible to break a 4 minute mile...

So what's the race going to be now? How many cores you have on a chip? Core count x clock rate?

This is going to force an interesting change in the software world... I'm amazed by how many applications are single threaded. I guess Intel's Hyperthreading has eased the industry into the transition, and giving a years warning will help.

Are games multi-threaded yet?
__________________
Only trolls use the word "fanboy".
Analog Kid is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 02:48 AM   #8
Analog Kid
macrumors 68030
 
Analog Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by isgoed
I don't understand what the problem is with 4Ghz. Overclockers were able to achieve 6Ghz (windows stable). It seems strange that those 200mhz or %5 increase pose a threshold.
A lot of the overclocking relies on LN2 cooling technology and the like, not something you can really ship.

I'm sure they didn't cancel it because they can't do it at all, but probably because they can't get the yields where they want them. There's a big difference between one hack getting one chip to operate in a controlled environment and outfitting an entire company with high reliability systems on their desks.

Of course Intel's MTBF doesn't really need to exceed Windows mean time between infections...

Quote:
Originally Posted by isgoed
Finally: why is this placed under topic "microsoft"?
Should probably be called "Wintel" instead of Microsoft... I've noticed the Intel stories get lumped in with Windows as a platform. I think they mean Microsoft as in "the other guys".
__________________
Only trolls use the word "fanboy".
Analog Kid is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 03:23 AM   #9
thatwendigo
macrumors 6502a
 
thatwendigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sum, Ergo Sum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Kid
A lot of the overclocking relies on LN2 cooling technology and the like, not something you can really ship.
It's also interesting to note that, while they did reach a supposed 6.0ghz mark with the machine, they had to scale back to 5.6ghz to be able to run anything. The feat was accomplished with a submersion bath of N2, which is so ridiculously unlikely in the home market that it doesn't even bear discussing.

Quote:
I'm sure they didn't cancel it because they can't do it at all, but probably because they can't get the yields where they want them. There's a big difference between one hack getting one chip to operate in a controlled environment and outfitting an entire company with high reliability systems on their desks.
There's also the small matter of needing liquid nitrogen so that the chip doesn't crack from overheating, and the fact that even 3.2ghz parts were running up over the 100 watt power draw mark.

In fact, I think I'll look up the latest releases...

Intel Pentium 4 3.6ghz runs at 115 watts

That makes the 970 look pretty cool, after all.
__________________
You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Because they change things.
thatwendigo is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 04:47 AM   #10
vollspacken
macrumors 65816
 
vollspacken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boogie-Down Berlintown
BAAAAAAAAAAM!!!

medic please, someone has hit the wall...

looks like the Pentium M is the way to go for the x86-world (and a nice chip that is...)

vSpacken
__________________
...A Huge Ever Growing Apple That Rules From The Centre Of The Ultraworld.
vollspacken is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 05:46 AM   #11
AmigoMac
macrumors 68020
 
AmigoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: l'Allemagne
It will be a long time before people "forget" the GHz myth, Dealers and shops probably won't help a lot in a short time, since a very famous question when people want a new PC is about processor speed ...

Maybe it will be until longhorn when the real publicity starts with system requierements:

Intel "Write the name here" processor.
XY GB RAM
blblabla

by now I don't see a radical change in that respect, but I could be wrong, AMD will help with that

AMD (Intel "Name here")+ processor...
__________________
No Mac no fun...
AmigoMac is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 05:54 AM   #12
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
 
Dont Hurt Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yahooville S.C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmigoMac
It will be a long time before people "forget" the GHz myth, Dealers and shops probably won't help a lot in a short time, since a very famous question when people want a new PC is about processor speed ...

Maybe it will be until longhorn when the real publicity starts with system requierements:

Intel "Write the name here" processor.
XY GB RAM
blblabla

by now I don't see a radical change in that respect, but I could be wrong, AMD will help with that

AMD (Intel "Name here")+ processor...
So true, i was wondering what is Amd going to do now? so i have a 3500+ so that means its......nevermind.
__________________
Those that give up Liberty to have temporary Security deserve Neither......Benjamin Franklin.
Dont Hurt Me is offline   0
Old Oct 15, 2004, 10:08 AM   #13
Sol
macrumors 65832
 
Sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Send a message via Skype™ to Sol
Dual-core performance on Windows XP

Intel has hit the x86 wall. When the dual-core CPUs are ready Intel would prefer that Longhorn was available. Otherwise, Windows and all its applications need a major update to see a noticable effect from two cores.
__________________
DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER
Sol is offline   0
Old Oct 16, 2004, 06:39 PM   #14
CaptainHaddock
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan
The theoretical speed of a transostor [sic] lies at about 200Ghz. Of a cpu that will not be as high, but certainly higher than 6Ghz.

The problem is not the switching speed of a transistor, but the speed of an electron—a true physical limit. As a poster on Slashdot pointed out, an electron can only travel .75cm—less than the diameter of a chip die—per cycle at 4 GHz. So to go any faster, you have to make sure that no possible operation has circuits that long. The faster you go, the more constrained your circuit designs get. And then there's the distribution of the clock cycle signal (which must reach all parts of the die) to worry about.

Heck, even the Cray X-1 supercomputer only runs at 800 MHz!

That's why Intel is falling behind. They've been too concerned about clock speed, a marketing gimmick, while AMD and IBM have been focusing on getting more out of each clock cycle.

The only way to radically increase clock speed in the future will be to adopt optical circuitry. In the meantime, it'll be nice to see chip-makers concentrate on improving other features.
CaptainHaddock is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fans at top speed The Unseen MacBook Pro 4 Sep 22, 2013 05:07 AM
Intel Releases New Low-Power 64-bit 6-Watt Atom Chip For Servers Middleman-77 Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 2 Dec 18, 2012 02:26 PM
What is the difference between a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and a 2.5GHz i5? XPcentric MacBook Pro 9 Nov 24, 2012 01:43 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC