7GHz? There is a CPU for that.

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by jav6454, Nov 13, 2009.

  1. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #1
    Yup, the 7.0 GHz barrier has been broken. That is, after many liters of liquid Helium and planning time.

    The CPU to earn this tittle? An AMD Phenom II. Although the exact frequency is 7.08 GHz or 7088 MHz.

    Linky: Click Me for details
     
  2. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
  3. -aggie- macrumors P6

    -aggie-

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Where bunnies are welcome.
    #3
    Not really feasible for the typical user though. :D
     
  4. gilkisson macrumors 65816

    gilkisson

  5. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Snap!!
     
  6. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #6
    I wonder if it's a TWKR or a C3 Phenom II X4 965.
     
  7. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
  8. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #8
    agreed, but the new benchmark is very cool--in a literal sense:cool:
     
  9. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #9
    When will CPU companies hurry up and use synthetic diamond instead of SOI? Synthetic diamond went up to 81GHz in lab tests!
     
  10. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #10
    That's the switching rate of a single transistor, not a practical clock speed for a microprocessor of any reasonable scale.
     
  11. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #11
    Are you listening to yourself?
     
  12. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #12
    It's feasible, just use your imagination. But in any case.... a program won't benefit much from 5 or 7GHz if the memory bus or any other bus is the bottleneck.
     
  13. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #13
    No one is. :p
     
  14. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #14
    Yes, I am.

    But do you have a clue as to why my statement is true?
     
  15. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #15
    Yes, but shh. I'm being the elitist extreme gamAAA!!!

    ---

    Why aren't more companies researching Quantum/Bio Computing? A couple of Universities cant do it all.
     
  16. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #16
    Because current computing needs don't demand Quantum Computing.
     
  17. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #17
    Has anyone tried this with Core i7? Or Xeons? I could see a 7GHz Mac Pro...

    Oh and by the way... IBM's POWER 6 mainframe processors run at 5GHz. I don't know what cooling they use, but overclocking these things could be awesome (but on another thought, maybe it's the max frequency).
     
  18. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #18
    Well, seeing as current i7s overclock fine to 4.2GHz in common instances using only water cooling, I can see their potential be taken beyond and go past the 8GHz barrier.
     
  19. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #19
    What a load of baloney. Current Computing needs don't need 64-bit and guess what? Its happening.
     
  20. HellDiverUK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, UK
    #20
    Apart from the 4GB RAM limit on 32-bit OS? You're saying current computing doesn't need any more than around 3.5GB? Really?
     
  21. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #21
    I have ordered 8GB for my macbook, i need it for my work flow over the next 2 years. I can see more and more people needed and using more than 3.5GB ram.
     
  22. jav6454 thread starter macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #22
    I never said computing doesn't need to advance, but currently we don't need it. You want it which is very different. As per 64-bit, that we need. We are seeing applications need more room to breathe and the availability of large memory modules.

    What we need is more efficient programs that can run fine without needing 10GHz.
     

Share This Page