Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nived

macrumors member
May 15, 2006
42
0
Dallas-ish
superbovine said:
This is the feature after we reach the physical limitation of a traditional cpu. these will be faster than you can phantom at the moment.

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8836-black-holes-the-ultimate-quantum-computers.html

One day we'll be looking at dual-core blackholes capable of simulating a nuclear explosion in a fraction of a second... but all we'll need out of them is a word processor.
 

mmulin

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2006
404
0
guys, calm down. this is single point precission calculation. it wont benefit at the current time any real world desktop computer rather than super computers speciallizing on SPP calculations. SPP is a totally different matter when it comes to chip design. as far i know ibm is working on double precission for the same technology which will probably result in a factor 10..30x over current chip designs.. which, fair enough, i like to have under the bonnet ;)
 

cb911

macrumors 601
Mar 12, 2002
4,128
4
BrisVegas, Australia
i only skimmed the 1st page of the thread, didn't even read the article, yet. :eek: :p

but in response to the thread subject - does it really matter if Apple goes back to using PPC. With Universal binaries it won't make a lick of difference, right?
 

mmmcheese

macrumors 6502a
Feb 17, 2006
948
0
This isn't what it sounds like...

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet, so I will do it:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060622-7117.html

IBM's 500GHz processor? Not so fast...
6/22/2006 3:29:45 PM, by Jon Hannibal Stokes

I'm going to resist the urge to go on a rant about J-school grads who horribly mangle their coverage of technical topics, because, to be fair, I'm not exactly an analog RF guru myself. However, I will say that yesterday's round of press reports about the IBM/Georgia Tech 500GHz transistor was just a train wreck: "OMG a 500GHz supercooled computer chip!! Terahertz CPUs here we come! Also, cell phone chips only run at 2GHz!! (I'm, uh, not sure why this cell phone detail is relevant—shouldn't we be comparing these to Pentiums?—but that's what the PR guy said so I'll just throw that tidbit in my article.)"

If you read the coverage yesterday, let me see if I can untangle it for you. Like I said, I'm not really an analog circuits guy (I hated those classes, and I don't follow that industry), but I'll give it a shot. And if you didn't read the coverage, then hopefully the following will save you a headache.

Switching vs. clocking
First off, what the Georgia Tech/IBM team demonstrated was a transistor that can be switched at 350GHz at room temperature, and 500GHz when cooled to near absolute zero. Now, just because a transistor can switch that fast, it doesn't mean that you could build a processor that is clocked that fast. The transistors that make up, say, a Pentium 4 processor could theoretically be switched much faster the clockspeed of even the fastest Pentium 4 chip; but how fast an individual transistor can be switched and how fast you can clock a complex digital circuit that consists of millions of those transistors communicating in lock-step are two very, very different numbers.

But really, there's no need to even talk about desktop processors here, because the kind of transistor that IBM and GA Tech goosed up to 500GHz is intended for use not in digital circuits but in analog RF devices.

CMOS = digital, like for CPUs; BiCMOS SiGe = analog RF for wireless devices
The other thing that was confusing about the coverage of the IBM/GA Tech announcement was this universally repeated comparison of the 500GHz transistor to a 2GHz "cell phone chip." To understand where comparison this came from, you first have to know that wireless devices like cell phones use multiple kinds of silicon-based circuits to do their thing.

The kind of silicon circuit that most people are familiar with is the low-power, embedded microprocessor that the phone uses to run its software (Java games, the interface, media playback, etc.). This processor is produced on a typical complementary metal oxide (CMOS) process, and it certainly does not run at 2GHz, or anything close. What runs at 2GHz is a much smaller, simpler chip containing an analog circuit that processes the wireless signal in real-time. Unlike the cell phone's CPU, such chips are made on a silicon-germanium (SiGe) BiCMOS process.

Because these SiGe circuits are performing analog processing of a high-frequency radio signal, the transistors that make up the circuits have to be able to switch at the same frequency as the radio signal that's passing through them. The faster these transistors can switch, the higher the frequencies they can be used to process. So a phone that operates in the 2GHz spectrum needs an analog RF chip that can operate at 2GHz; likewise, a radar device that operates in the 24GHz spectrum needs an analog processing circuit that can operate at 24GHz, and so on.

By making SiGe BiCMOS transistors that can operate at ever higher frequencies, IBM and others hope to enable the wireless industry to produce electronics that effectively utilize new portions of the radio spectrum.

At any rate, there's a good thread in the CPU & Motherboard forum on this, so check it out if you get the chance.
 

Makosuke

macrumors 604
Aug 15, 2001
6,662
1,242
The Cool Part of CA, USA
codo said:
Sounds utterly confusion. I pity the dudes at IBM who have to market this stuff...
I don't, because they don't have to market it to the general public any more than developers of the trasmitters in 2.4GHz cordless phones have to worry about marketing their product versus a Pentium chip. It's a base-level enabling technology, not a consumer product. If and when this eventually goes to market, IBM may not even make the transmitters, but just licence the tech to other companies.

I'm glad that somebody finally posted a clarification about what this announcement was actually relative to, which has nothing to do with processors. At all.

That's why the speed comparison was for downloading something, not for processing something--the promise is for hyper-wideband wireless data transmission of one sort or another.

Which is actually rather cool, but has bunk to do with computer processors. Next-next-next-gen WiFi, maybe.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.