Will CPU chips ever get to a base clock of 7 or 8 ghz?
I understand that more transistors in those CPU chips have, the more heat it creates but I thought by now we would have faster clock speeds instead of relying on more cores. What's really weird is that intel processors with the same amount of cores and have similar performance with AMD Ryzen chips are much more expensive for some reason. Are consumers getting ripped off? 1 ghz computers have been out since the 90s.
Just want to clarify, I meant intel chips with less cores and have similar performance with AMD are much more expensive for some reason.
- ShadowLv 4hace 4 semanasRespuesta preferida
Multi-core processors are more efficient than over the top speed. Think of it in terms of vehicles transporting goods. Which will transport more? A 16 ton truck capable of 120Mph or eight 16 ton trucks capable of 40mph?
- LukeLv 7hace 4 semanas
Nah man, they'll get too hot! Waiting for an 8 Ghz computer is a bit like waiting for a 256 bit console. It ain't gonna happen.
- hace 1 mes
Silicon has topped out at 5ghz and parallelism is the only viable work around that is going to work on consumer chips,if it was possible to get to 10ghz they would have done it and maybe multiple processors in one package wouldn't have been needed.
- m8xpayneLv 7hace 1 mes
lol, I could take my i7 processor, turn all but 1 core off in the BIOS, clock it down to 3.0ghz and it will still whoop the an old Pentium 4 because the architecture of a newer CPU is far more efficient. Intel made a huge IPC jump from Pentium 4 to 65nm Core 2, and the IPC jump from Core 2 to the current Skylake refresh processors is big.
I doubt it..... Silicon is already at it's limit around 4.5ghz-4.8ghz and even Intel's current processors only clock up to 5.0ghz on a limited number of cores. Not all Intel K processors can overclock to 5.0ghz on all cores either. Since the 2nd Generation Sandy Bridge, Intel processors don't overclock much past 5.0ghz on all cores.
Processors might hit higher clocks if Chip makers find a better material to make processors out of. If you look at the old Pentium 4 and AMD FX/Bulldozer processors, those were capable of high clocks but pipelines needed to be extended in order to allow the CPU to clock higher. There are things that can be done to the architecture that will allow higher clocks but usually those are at the expense of efficiency.
About Intel processors like the 9900k and 10900k being $530 in comparison to a $500 msrp Ryzen 9 3900x, part of the reason for the price is Intel processors like that are marketed towards Gamers that want or think they need the highest framerate possible. The iGPU in the Intel non-F processors is also handy for encoding and it can sometimes give the Intel processors an advantage. If you're using a program that uses all of the cores and threads it can get, AMD is the clear winner.
- ¿Qué te parecieron las respuestas? Puedes iniciar sesión para votar por la respuesta.
- ∅Lv 7hace 1 mes
the clock frequency does not matter. the speed is determined by the internals. that frequency is just a reference. you can tell because a Pentium 4 3.8Ghz CPU is nowhere near the speed of a Core i7 3.8 Ghz CPU. it only matters within the same family/generation.
- StarryskyLv 7hace 1 mes
Speeds of processors are running up against the speed of transmission of data. An eleven inch long wire from an SSD to a motherboard has an electrical transit time of a billionth of a second end to end. Requests from processor and getting data back to RAM might take 4 billionths travel time total. Hard to justify faster CPU chips if there can be no faster transmission times.
- Pearl LedermanLv 6hace 1 mes
I'm not sure of the specifics of modern day CPU architectures, but Intel fully intended that someday Netburst (Pentium 4, Pentium D) would reach 10 GHz but it barely ever reached non-overclocked speeds of 3.8 GHz. They decided to abandon Netburst and develop their Core architecture from P6.