T
TripleEight
Everyone take a gamble! 
I say in 2007 January.
I say in 2007 January.
When will the first "10 GHz" cpu be made available to the end user?
S
Susan Sontag in Hell
Next Tuesday.
T
TripleEight
| Next Tuesday.
|
That's cool! Could you tell me where I can get this AMD 10GHz processor?
Also tell me which motherbaords would be the best! ; )
|
That's cool! Could you tell me where I can get this AMD 10GHz processor?
Also tell me which motherbaords would be the best! ; )
W
Wes Newell
Everyone take a gamble!
I say in 2007 January.
I'l say 2010, but I really think it'll be a lot longer than that. Wonder
why both amd an iintel are working on dual core cpu's.
E
Ed Koan
TripleEight said:Everyone take a gamble!
I say in 2007 January.
I say never. There's little to no point at all ramping frequency up.
The future is multiple core on chip and tricks like that.
Look at AMD. It's 2 years they work at 2GHz with different cpus. But
AMD64 is way faster than K7, even if their frequency is the same.
Remember: 10GHZ means the light will travel for 3cm, slightly more than
1". So you need several clock cycles before the signal moves on from the
cpu to main memory. Your cpu will sit idle waiting for data.
T
TripleEight
| TripleEight wrote:
| > Everyone take a gamble!
| >
| > I say in 2007 January.
|
| I say never. There's little to no point at all ramping frequency up.
| The future is multiple core on chip and tricks like that.
| Look at AMD. It's 2 years they work at 2GHz with different cpus. But
| AMD64 is way faster than K7, even if their frequency is the same.
|
| Remember: 10GHZ means the light will travel for 3cm, slightly more than
| 1". So you need several clock cycles before the signal moves on from the
| cpu to main memory. Your cpu will sit idle waiting for data.
This leads lead to another question.
Will there ever be a limit? I always had thought there would!
| > Everyone take a gamble!
| >
| > I say in 2007 January.
|
| I say never. There's little to no point at all ramping frequency up.
| The future is multiple core on chip and tricks like that.
| Look at AMD. It's 2 years they work at 2GHz with different cpus. But
| AMD64 is way faster than K7, even if their frequency is the same.
|
| Remember: 10GHZ means the light will travel for 3cm, slightly more than
| 1". So you need several clock cycles before the signal moves on from the
| cpu to main memory. Your cpu will sit idle waiting for data.
This leads lead to another question.
Will there ever be a limit? I always had thought there would!
E
Ed Koan
Well, you have some limits. Speed of light, for instance. Or limits dueTripleEight said:| TripleEight wrote:
| > Everyone take a gamble!
| >
| > I say in 2007 January.
|
| I say never. There's little to no point at all ramping frequency up.
| The future is multiple core on chip and tricks like that.
| Look at AMD. It's 2 years they work at 2GHz with different cpus. But
| AMD64 is way faster than K7, even if their frequency is the same.
|
| Remember: 10GHZ means the light will travel for 3cm, slightly more than
| 1". So you need several clock cycles before the signal moves on from the
| cpu to main memory. Your cpu will sit idle waiting for data.
This leads lead to another question.
Will there ever be a limit? I always had thought there would!
to Heisenberg's principle. Or even better in this case, size of an atom.
The latter means you won't be able to create a circuit smaller than an
atom (forget quantum computing, which is nice for writing SF stories).
But if you start thinking just about the current situation, the
bottleneck isn't cpu anymore. It's the I/O, i.e memory access. In real
life DDR400 is not almost twice as fast as DDR266, say.
What next? I don't know. But I doubt the speed of the *whole* pc will
double every 18 months in the near future.
M
Mitch Crane
Everyone take a gamble!
I say in 2007 January.
Correct. And it will be a 1361-bit processor. Your video card will be the
size of a small RV and will require a dedicated 3 phase power input. Hard
drives will be solid state holographic crystal devices and we will drive
flying cars.
Oh, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco will still be dead.
D
Debbie the Dogged
You forgot: programs will know in advance when you want to run them and
the results will be waiting for you whenever you sit down at your
computer. In fact, they'll be so fast that they finish before they
start.
LOL!
(First post here, proud owner of an HP Pavilion a850e with an Athlon 64
3400+, and somewhat wishing I'd read this newgroup before I ordered, but
happy with my new machine, "Speedy", anyway, especially in comparison to
the P2 400MHz it replaced).
C
Carlo Razzeto
TripleEight said:Everyone take a gamble!
I say in 2007 January.
Quantum Computers are the wave of the future
http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html
M
Mitch Crane
Damn! Gaming's gonna suck in the 21st century!
Nice upgrade. That's the upside of not upgrading every year or two. You
can actually feel the difference.
D
Dracir Venostos
Mitch Crane said:
Now that would be a nightmare, given that a fair percentage of people can't
drive on land, let alone in the air. It'll never happen.
D
DougH
we will drive flying cars.
I can see it happening. It will just be a special license qualification
like they have for a bus or an 18 wheeler. There will be those duffasses
that have to remain on land and then there will be us flying high above the
traffic jam.
DougH
I can see it happening. It will just be a special license qualification
like they have for a bus or an 18 wheeler. There will be those duffasses
that have to remain on land and then there will be us flying high above the
traffic jam.
DougH
E
Ed Koan
Yes. In SF b-movies.Carlo said:
R
Roy Coorne
At 6:00 p.m. GMTSusan said:
C
Carlo Razzeto
Ed Koan said:
C
Carlo Razzeto
Ed Koan said:
You are way off... You have no idea!
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/st/quantum_information/qcom/nmr/
Carlo
J
Jerry McBride
Wes said:I'l say 2010, but I really think it'll be a lot longer than that. Wonder
why both amd an iintel are working on dual core cpu's.
Right you are Wes. That's where it will be. Instead of faster and faster
clocks, it'll b more and more cpus' per chip. I wouldn't be surprised if
you begin to see "on chip system memory".
--
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
11:24pm up 103 days, 7:10, 8 users, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.09
E
Ed Koan
You don't have the sligthest notion of the real problems associated toCarlo said:
this pseudoscienze.
Come back when you'll store 1kqubit in real atoms.
Yes, somewhere around 3420...
L
Lachoneus
Correct. And it will be a 1361-bit processor. Your video card will be the
We'll also have to "activate" our eyeballs in order to see the picture
on our 2000" TV screens. You know, to prevent freeloaders with
telescopes from pirating the signal.
We'll also have to "activate" our eyeballs in order to see the picture
on our 2000" TV screens. You know, to prevent freeloaders with
telescopes from pirating the signal.