Are we approaching a physical barrier of the CPU speed?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
v=2*10^8 m/s.
The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
electromagnetic wave has to pass about
s=10^-2 m
inside chip.
I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
have fixed speed. From
t=s/v
we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
the another side is
t=0,5*10^-10 s
Taking f=1/t
we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.

If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
GHz.

Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.

I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

not really, the only problem with the 90nm process is the prescotts design.
Dothans (based on P3 design) can hit 2ghz with ease with the 90nm proccess,
and only produce 24watts of heat output. Hardly the ceiling of cooling.
These CPU's do more work per mhz than the P4 so infact BEAT it in some
tests, and also beat the A64 in some tests too. So the future of CPU's???
MORE work per mhz, not less like the P4 design, thats where intel went
wrong, and a few of us knew that from the start, but was called amd fan
boyz.........

fact is if you find out that sooner rather than later your going to run out
of clockspeed head room, you DONT design the CPU to do less work per mhz now
do you? Well thats what they did, instead of fixing the P3's problems, they
designed a new chip that did very little work per mhz, and everyone thought
it was great it could do 1.4-1.8ghz, shame a 1.1ghz P3 utterly thrashed it
and the AMD 1.4ghz made the P4 look like the new celeron...

I for one cant wait for the "old" P3 design intel chips to surface in the
desktop market. then maybe AMD could drop the "rating" of there chips.


--
From Adam Webb, Overlag


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 22/09/2004
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

<snip>

> I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
> example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
> cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
> of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.

Optical processors are in development (search on bbc tech news) and should
provide somewhat higher speeds.
Further on, we should be seeing organic / biological processors... they you
really could kill your pc!

hamman
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

The limit is perhaps one of rising R&D per performance gain, but that
has long been with us. The issue will be whether we can maintain the
requisite rising revenue to fund it. Intel along with many IT companies
are as much low single-digit growth vehicles, not the old 30-40%/yr.

Yes the P-M architecture is good - based on the P3s quiet development
for industrial & other applications re low thermal power, good CPU power.

Ramping clock to outperform the disadvantages of longer pipelines was
the story of the P4 - ie, achieving less per clock but ramping clock faster.
The future seems to be a mix of also achieving more per clock a la P3.


It was easy in the past to get a 10x increase in performance by the
benchmarks on an upgrade - so at least perceptible in real world 🙂

That is getting more difficult:
o CPUs have very high bandwidth, as does memory
o HDs have much quicker too - but are still electromechanical
---- density has greatly increased, rotational latency less so

The real problem with HDs based-I/O is in the realised throughput:
o As years have gone by we moved away from few-app file & 1 data-file
o Today we have MS-IE & such like with vast numbers of tiny files
o Lots of seeking & multiple accesses stress the mechanical speed issue

The mechanical speed issue is still a major barrier - not just CPU speed.
Ability to re-order commands (TCQ/NCQ) will help, but as yet whilst the
market has HD drives offering it - cards & O/S up the chain do not yet.
--
Dorothy Bradbury
www.stores.ebay.co.uk/panaflofan for quiet Panaflo fans & other items
www.dorothybradbury.co.uk (free delivery)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0409240500.1a31680@posting.google.com...
> The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
> v=2*10^8 m/s.
> The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
> electromagnetic wave has to pass about
> s=10^-2 m
> inside chip.
> I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
> have fixed speed. From
> t=s/v
> we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
> the another side is
> t=0,5*10^-10 s
> Taking f=1/t
> we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
> chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.
>
> If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
> about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
> GHz.
>
> Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
> bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
> that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.

Again an assumption that has two potential flaws. It ignores the
possibility that getting smaller wont go through a quantum jump beyond
adding more transistors.
Then there's the possibility that I've been reading about on some scifi
sites about extra-dimensional processing...well in the mean time maybe we'll
just settle for the 3rd.

> I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
> example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
> cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
> of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.

All that assumes that the entire chip in synchronously clocked. Obviously
an dubious assumption.

Currently the clear physical barrier seems to be KW per acre and that
translates directly into horsepower per peck in the future. Maybe the
watercooled OCers aren't such nuts after all.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GOudnTtEbYXxgMncRVn-oQ@eclipse.net.uk...
> not really, the only problem with the 90nm process is the prescotts
design.
> Dothans (based on P3 design) can hit 2ghz with ease with the 90nm
proccess,
> and only produce 24watts of heat output. Hardly the ceiling of cooling.
> These CPU's do more work per mhz than the P4 so infact BEAT it in some
> tests, and also beat the A64 in some tests too. So the future of CPU's???
> MORE work per mhz, not less like the P4 design, thats where intel went
> wrong, and a few of us knew that from the start, but was called amd fan
> boyz.........
>
> fact is if you find out that sooner rather than later your going to run
out
> of clockspeed head room, you DONT design the CPU to do less work per mhz
now
> do you?

Did ya come up will multi core too?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

>
> Did ya come up will multi core too?

yup...multi core comes under "more work per mhz" in my mind ;-)

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 22/09/2004
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Do you really think it matters?

The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
the human brain, switch in milliseconds.

Even when clock speeds hit a wall, more transistors
will give us massively parallel microprocessors that
will continue to do more work in the same amount
of time than their predecessors.

"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0409240500.1a31680@posting.google.com...
> The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
> v=2*10^8 m/s.
> The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
> electromagnetic wave has to pass about
> s=10^-2 m
> inside chip.
> I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
> have fixed speed. From
> t=s/v
> we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
> the another side is
> t=0,5*10^-10 s
> Taking f=1/t
> we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
> chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.
>
> If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
> about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
> GHz.
>
> Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
> bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
> that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.
>
> I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
> example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
> cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
> of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I'd put my money on silicon carbide devices as being in real world
applications before optical. Organic and bio-processors are still only at
the stage of being really great ways to part funding organisations from
their money in order to fund academic research.

Pete

"Hamman" <none@example.com> wrote in message
news:nOCdnfSmKpuf8MncRVn-qw@eclipse.net.uk...
> <snip>
>
>> I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
>> example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
>> cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
>> of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
>
> Optical processors are in development (search on bbc tech news) and should
> provide somewhat higher speeds.
> Further on, we should be seeing organic / biological processors... they
> you really could kill your pc!
>
> hamman
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Immuno" <immunodevice@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cj4d6p$c0$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I'd put my money on silicon carbide devices

What the hell ever happened to diamond?

> as being in real world
> applications before optical. Organic and bio-processors are still only at
> the stage of being really great ways to part funding organisations from
> their money in order to fund academic research.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Do you really think it matters?
>
> The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> the human brain, switch in milliseconds.

That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the brain
and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
electronics.

> Even when clock speeds hit a wall, more transistors
> will give us massively parallel microprocessors that
> will continue to do more work in the same amount
> of time than their predecessors.
>
> "Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
> news:f9e33c87.0409240500.1a31680@posting.google.com...
> > The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
> > v=2*10^8 m/s.
> > The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
> > electromagnetic wave has to pass about
> > s=10^-2 m
> > inside chip.
> > I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
> > have fixed speed. From
> > t=s/v
> > we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
> > the another side is
> > t=0,5*10^-10 s
> > Taking f=1/t
> > we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
> > chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.
> >
> > If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
> > about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
> > GHz.
> >
> > Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
> > bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
> > that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.
> >
> > I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
> > example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
> > cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
> > of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Do you really think it matters?
>>
>>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
>>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
>
>
> That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the brain
> and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> electronics.

His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of it
is correct.


>>Even when clock speeds hit a wall, more transistors
>>will give us massively parallel microprocessors that
>>will continue to do more work in the same amount
>>of time than their predecessors.
>>
>>"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
>>news:f9e33c87.0409240500.1a31680@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
>>>v=2*10^8 m/s.
>>>The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
>>>electromagnetic wave has to pass about
>>>s=10^-2 m
>>>inside chip.
>>>I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
>>>have fixed speed. From
>>>t=s/v
>>>we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
>>>the another side is
>>>t=0,5*10^-10 s
>>>Taking f=1/t
>>>we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
>>>chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.
>>>
>>>If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
>>>about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
>>>GHz.
>>>
>>>Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
>>>bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
>>>that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.
>>>
>>>I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
>>>example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
>>>cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
>>>of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> > "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Do you really think it matters?
> >>
> >>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> >>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> >
> >
> > That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
brain
> > and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> > electronics.
>
> His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of it
> is correct.

That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means. To suggest
that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to a
current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence and further there's
some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you really think it matters?
>>>>
>>>>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
>>>>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
>
> brain
>
>>>and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
>>>electronics.
>>
>>His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of it
>>is correct.
>
>
> That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
> picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means.

True

> To suggest
> that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to a
> current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence

Well, we do know enough to know that electro-chemical signals do, 'in some
fashion', 'switch' in neural cells, we just don't understand the totality
of it nor the organizational structure (not to imply that's in any way
'trivial').

> and further there's
> some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.

That is the point in noting the incredibly slow, by electronic switching
terms, the 'brain cell' is yet how infinitely more complex in computational
ability the brain is vs a computer using those 'fast' circuits. Clearly the
'suggestion' is that it operates on an entirely different computing principle.

The broader suggestion is that total computational power may not be
necessarily limited by 'slow' switching times (e.g. processor 'MHz') if
more advanced techniques are employed.

This is similar to the 'sound barrier' argument. It's certainly problematic
if one assumes propeller driven aircraft is the only means to accomplish
it... but then... maybe we could design a new type of aircraft.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10lcdivs7um82fc@corp.supernews.com...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Ron Reaugh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Do you really think it matters?
> >>>>
> >>>>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> >>>>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
> >
> > brain
> >
> >>>and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> >>>electronics.
> >>
> >>His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of
it
> >>is correct.
> >
> >
> > That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
> > picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means.
>
> True
>
> > To suggest
> > that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to
a
> > current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence
>
> Well, we do know enough to know that electro-chemical signals do, 'in some
> fashion', 'switch' in neural cells, we just don't understand the totality
> of it nor the organizational structure (not to imply that's in any way
> 'trivial').
>
> > and further there's
> > some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.
>
> That is the point in noting the incredibly slow, by electronic switching
> terms, the 'brain cell' is yet how infinitely more complex in
computational
> ability the brain is vs a computer using those 'fast' circuits. Clearly
the
> 'suggestion' is that it operates on an entirely different computing
principle.

Precisely and therefore not comparable.

> The broader suggestion is that total computational power may not be
> necessarily limited by 'slow' switching times (e.g. processor 'MHz') if
> more advanced techniques are employed.

No, since nothing really is known about comparable switching time then we
don't know "slow". Some chemical state changes make 100 ps switch times
look turtlelike. Some apparent timing in the millisecond region could be a
result of a zillion vastly faster digital OR analog operations.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10lcdivs7um82fc@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you really think it matters?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
>>>>>>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
>>>
>>>brain
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
>>>>>electronics.
>>>>
>>>>His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of
>
> it
>
>>>>is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
>>>picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means.
>>
>>True
>>
>>
>>> To suggest
>>>that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to
>
> a
>
>>>current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence
>>
>>Well, we do know enough to know that electro-chemical signals do, 'in some
>>fashion', 'switch' in neural cells, we just don't understand the totality
>>of it nor the organizational structure (not to imply that's in any way
>>'trivial').
>>
>>
>>>and further there's
>>>some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.
>>
>>That is the point in noting the incredibly slow, by electronic switching
>>terms, the 'brain cell' is yet how infinitely more complex in
>
> computational
>
>>ability the brain is vs a computer using those 'fast' circuits. Clearly
>
> the
>
>>'suggestion' is that it operates on an entirely different computing
>
> principle.
>
> Precisely and therefore not comparable.

Not showing much imagination there.


>>The broader suggestion is that total computational power may not be
>>necessarily limited by 'slow' switching times (e.g. processor 'MHz') if
>>more advanced techniques are employed.
>
>
> No, since nothing really is known about comparable switching time then we
> don't know "slow". Some chemical state changes make 100 ps switch times
> look turtlelike. Some apparent timing in the millisecond region could be a
> result of a zillion vastly faster digital OR analog operations.

The current understanding of it doesn't comport with your 'could be'
speculation.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message

> > No, since nothing really is known about comparable switching time then
we
> > don't know "slow". Some chemical state changes make 100 ps switch times
> > look turtlelike. Some apparent timing in the millisecond region could
be a
> > result of a zillion vastly faster digital OR analog operations.
>
> The current understanding of it doesn't comport with your 'could be'
> speculation.

Nope, it "comports" precisely with my claim from the getgo which is that
mostly it is all unknown and therefore not comparable.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>No, since nothing really is known about comparable switching time then
>
> we
>
>>>don't know "slow". Some chemical state changes make 100 ps switch times
>>>look turtlelike. Some apparent timing in the millisecond region could
>
> be a
>
>>>result of a zillion vastly faster digital OR analog operations.
>>
>>The current understanding of it doesn't comport with your 'could be'
>>speculation.
>
>
> Nope, it "comports" precisely with my claim from the getgo which is that
> mostly it is all unknown and therefore not comparable.
>
>

There's a lot more known about it that you give credit for.

Which is neither here nor there because he's simply pointing out that there
are ways of increasing computing power other than simply counting cycles of
the same old thing.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I believe Best Data Products acquired three brands from the former Diamond
Multimedia Company including Diamond Stealth and Viper graphics cards as
well as Diamond SupraMax modems.

http://www.diamondmm.com/index.php

😱))))))))))))))))))))

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news😛Mk5d.431788$OB3.322612@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Immuno" <immunodevice@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cj4d6p$c0$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> I'd put my money on silicon carbide devices
>
> What the hell ever happened to diamond?
>
>> as being in real world
>> applications before optical. Organic and bio-processors are still only at
>> the stage of being really great ways to part funding organisations from
>> their money in order to fund academic research.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:UOk5d.431798$OB3.97495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Do you really think it matters?
> >
> > The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> > the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
>
> That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the brain
> and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> electronics.

Actually, it is quite clear. Go to Google and search on "neuron switch"

>
> > Even when clock speeds hit a wall, more transistors
> > will give us massively parallel microprocessors that
> > will continue to do more work in the same amount
> > of time than their predecessors.
> >
> > "Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
> > news:f9e33c87.0409240500.1a31680@posting.google.com...
> > > The electromagnetic waves in conductor have a limited speed of about
> > > v=2*10^8 m/s.
> > > The area of the common chip is about 1 cm^2, so we can assume that
> > > electromagnetic wave has to pass about
> > > s=10^-2 m
> > > inside chip.
> > > I will not take relativistic mechanic, because electromagnetic waves
> > > have fixed speed. From
> > > t=s/v
> > > we have time required that signal comes from one side of the chip to
> > > the another side is
> > > t=0,5*10^-10 s
> > > Taking f=1/t
> > > we get that at 20 GHz signal can not even travel from one side of the
> > > chip to another one before arrival of the new clock signal.
> > >
> > > If we take average size of one motherboard, here we have a road of
> > > about 10 cm. This means that motherboard clock can not go beyond 2
> > > GHz.
> > >
> > > Intel promissed 30 GHz CPU in 2017, with smaller transistors, but
> > > bigger number of them (as usual). Therefore it is not to be expected
> > > that overal size of the CPU chip will be much reduced.
> > >
> > > I could conclude that future CPU will work with several clocks. For
> > > example at 30 GHz will work only ALU and some registers, where L1 RAM
> > > cache will drop to 5 GHz and RAM to less than 2 GHz. This means a lot
> > > of wait states, and a very weak effect of the clock raising.
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:J1q5d.633469$Gx4.349912@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
> > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> >
> > > "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >>Do you really think it matters?
> > >>
> > >>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> > >>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
> brain
> > > and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> > > electronics.
> >
> > His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of
it
> > is correct.
>
> That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
> picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means. To suggest
> that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to a
> current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence and further there's
> some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.

It is clear that a neuron has inputs, an ouput, and a threshold function
that determnines when the output goes active based on the state of the
inputs.

Digital circuitry is EXACTLY the same.

>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
news:2roqpcF1b4qh9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:UOk5d.431798$OB3.97495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > Do you really think it matters?
> > >
> > > The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> > > the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> >
> > That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
brain
> > and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> > electronics.
>
> Actually, it is quite clear. Go to Google and search on "neuron switch"

No, that tells nothing relevant to this issue.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:jOG5d.636343$Gx4.108045@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:2roqpcF1b4qh9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:UOk5d.431798$OB3.97495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Do you really think it matters?
> > > >
> > > > The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> > > > the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> > >
> > > That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
> brain
> > > and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> > > electronics.
> >
> > Actually, it is quite clear. Go to Google and search on "neuron switch"
>
> No, that tells nothing relevant to this issue.

Finding and analyzing data from places like web.mit.edu
is not relevant???? LOL!!!!

OK dude, enjoy life inside your tiny mind!

>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
news:2roqv0F1c65voU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:J1q5d.633469$Gx4.349912@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > news:10lc6viqvbjrh2b@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > >
> > > > "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:2rlrr1F1b3gbvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > >>Do you really think it matters?
> > > >>
> > > >>The 'transistors" of the most powerful computer,
> > > >>the human brain, switch in milliseconds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's is entirely NOT clear. Define "switch" in the context of the
> > brain
> > > > and then relate that to the concept of "switch" is current digital
> > > > electronics.
> > >
> > > His analogy may employ a fair amount of poetic license but the gist of
> it
> > > is correct.
> >
> > That's the issue that I would argue. We(humans) do NOT yet have a clear
> > picture of what processing in the context of a neuron means. To suggest
> > that something switches in a brain that is in ANY fashion comparable to
a
> > current digital systems assumes facts NOT in evidence and further
there's
> > some considerable reason to suspect that it is NOT comparable.
>
> It is clear that a neuron has inputs, an ouput, and a threshold function
> that determnines when the output goes active based on the state of the
> inputs.
>
> Digital circuitry is EXACTLY the same.

No, that model is at its basest infancy. First of all the time domain of
the inputs are not established nor is the possibility that an input might be
serialized. A few Neanderthal experiments have been done on the simplest
cases. Output vs outputs has not been established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom