Moore's law coming to end ?

[nec207]

So we know Moore's law every 18 month processors double in speed and more and more transistors can fit on the IC .

The transistors get smaller and smaller .

But around 2004 processor clock speed hit brick wall of 3.0 GHz with out overheating the the solution to problem dual core!! But how much speed can they get out of a dual core now ? I mean in 2005 and 2006 it shined to see a dual core but 2011 dual core how much better.

I mean look we can look at intel core 2 duo and i3 or i5 but really the i3 or 15 is not going be 2 times faster than a intel core 2 duo .

The is a limit how much better you can make a dual core . I mean dual core has been around for over 5 years now.

Has for new state of art quad core not going to say much about it as I have not read up on quad core .

No idea when a 8 or 10 core will come out and how long we can go with many cores or when a engineering problem where they cannot put any more set number of cores.

No idea when intel will bring out a i9 may be in 2 years from now.

 

[alust2013]

There really won't be a finite number of cores that you can put on a processor, but at some point having more will be useless. CPU speed isn't increasing as fast as it used to, but at the same time, processing requirements aren't increasing as fast as they used to. Now, for most tasks, the speed of the CPU doesn't affect the speed of the task (except for video encoding, etc. which uses all the CPU it can get), whereas the CPU actually used to bottleneck some things, and a faster CPU actually did mean a faster computer.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

There is no limit to the number of cores a processor can have. My uncle who used to work at intel (no one important, btw) told me of a 99 core chip they made just because they could. Consumer chips haven't seemed to double in speed in quite a while, at least as far as I can tell. Adding more cores won't generally make things faster anyway. Unless the application you're working with is some scalable number cruncher or a rendering machine (normally a render farm depending on the level of detail) then throwing more cores at the problem isn't going to help much.

 

[nec207]

Adding more cores won't generally make things faster anyway. Unless the application you're working with is some scalable number cruncher or a rendering machine (normally a render farm depending on the level of detail) then throwing more cores at the problem isn't going to help much.

I think that may be do to video cards have good GPU and lots of VRAM for games and video editting.

It is it is mostly video editing and games where you need a good video card or CPU.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I think that may be do to video cards have good GPU and lots of VRAM for games and video editting.

It is it is mostly video editing and games where you need a good video card or CPU.

You said the same thing in both sentences...

I can't begin to list how many things rely on the video card and CPU just as much as games or video editors, those are far from the only tasks that require beefy CPUs or GPUs. And video editors don't even leverage the y GPU, that's usually other programs used in conjunction with the editor.

 

[InsanelyApple]

There is no limit to the number of cores a processor can have. My uncle who used to work at intel (no one important, btw) told me of a 99 core chip they made just because they could. Consumer chips haven't seemed to double in speed in quite a while, at least as far as I can tell. Adding more cores won't generally make things faster anyway. Unless the application you're working with is some scalable number cruncher or a rendering machine (normally a render farm depending on the level of detail) then throwing more cores at the problem isn't going to help much.

When can I buy that processor? Did he say that?