CPU speeds in decline. Is there hope?

[IDEA]

AMD and INTEL roll out with these quad and dual systems. What ever happened to Moore's Law?

 

[Atolsammeek]

I think it will be something Like While one Cpu runs basic app. The Other cpu will run higher end app. And game In a few years will use both cpus. Like Game in a year or so will use Windows 64.

 

[julius]

moore's law is transistor count, not clockspeed. another misconception, amd hasnt run out of clockspeed, intel has, with netburst. amd doesnt need to compete with itself, thus it just played conservative and did not make chips that use a crapload of power, so amd, if it increases the amps going to the chips and goes to a 65nm process,will break the 3ghz barrier.

 

[david_uk]

there was a link to a brief news article in last few days, either on this site or anandtech, to say that new technology had been uncovered which would see moores law continue to at least 2015 and beyond (I just read it quickly while at work).

 

[MercilessDeadlyRaven]

The new dual core 3800+ is a good, cheap dual core card, if your preparing for dual core games. If you want to run music programs, a game, 5 movies, and download porn at the same time, then you may want one now. But realistically, games wont use this tech for at least 2 years now. The switch to a 64 bit OS is also kind of stupid at the moment, because its not too much different from the regular, and nothing uses it yet. Plus, Windows Vista will be 64 bit, so just wait for that. Now, all of this is just based on the stuff that I have read/been told, and while I think of it as pretty accurate, it might not be. Just look around and read. I know there are some few articles on tom's hardware guide that talk about it. ^.^

 

[offgreen]

Moore's Law
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

That didn't say speed anywhere. Still speed doesn't have to increase for better performace if you can get more done per clock cycle, and thus produce less heat.

Also intel basiclly hit a wall of heat, and AMD has not yet. Maybe we just need fiber optic CPUs, someone needs to work on that.

 

[mpjesse]

Maybe we just need fiber optic CPUs, someone needs to work on that.

I actually saw something on The Register once about this company that claimed to have made a fiber optic chip. Their website was quite ammusing. They even had a booth at CES. It turned out to be a fraud though.

At any rate, Intel's already working on it. Read here:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114778,00.asp

 

[endyen]

Also intel basiclly hit a wall of heat

That wall was of thier own building. They have been chipping away at it, in typical Intel fashion though. By the time they hit 45 nanos, they will have it down to a bump.

 

[IDEA]

From a low end consumers point of view: I am not feeling the usual rise of transistors at no extra cost over time. I am still working on an Athlon XP CPU. I do not want to go to 64-bit CPU's as there is no point at the moment. Semprons have far too little cache.

If I buy these dual core CPU's then I will get benefit if I run more high-end applications simultaneously (which I don't really do often). Adding dual core CPU's is almost like cheating moore's law in terms of transistor count as the gains are merely for multithreaded apps. There is little technological growth at the moment for the ordinary Joe on the street.

What do you guys think?

 

[RichPLS]

I don't think you are considering that just a few years ago, the processor could only process a command at at a time, and no matter how fast you went, processes had to get in line.
With adding more transistors, enabled simultaneous process to run. This way your OS can run antivirus, spyware apps, TV video, while browsing internet, making voice over PC conversation, and playing a game at the same time.
This is where muli-process and dual core benefit and work together.
That is paving the way to much greater power than sticking with less processes and ramping megahertz.

 

[IDEA]

I agree that I can run more simultaneous apps on my Athlon XP than I could on my Duron 600.

Are you saying that Intel and AMD are focusing more on multi app usage as per market demand? Users who don't demand much multi-threaded work, should not be forced to buy into that route, as there is little choice in single core CPU's now when upgrading from an Athlon XP (in terms of value for money). The low-end group always used to enjoy vast technological advances over short periods of time. This is not the case now.

Wirth's Law: Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. (Nicklaus Wirth)

 

[endyen]

You seem to think that the A64s are only about 64 bit. That's just wrong. The A64s are as much better than the xps as the xps were over a slower duron. An A64 3200 is 15% faster/better than an xp 3200. The A64s also run cooler, and OC better, and just generally multitask more seamlessly. The A64s should also get a further boost with vista.
The X2s will also have thier day. It's just a little early yet.

 

[IDEA]

Interesting. Fair enough, but in that league I'm not convinced that I shouldn't buy a P4 rather. This thread has been educational. Thanks guys.

 

[RichPLS]

The low-end group always used to enjoy vast technological advances over short periods of time. This is not the case now.

Sure you can buy into lower end dual core, the route the industry is moving since it is obviously a benifet where the business and money is pushing.
Enthusiasts and home users can snag up the top end single cores for cheaper as this transaition takes hold, then move up to dual core celerons in two more years.

 

[ara]

Wirth's Law: Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. (Nicklaus Wirth)

That doesn't apply to firefox now does it?

Ara

 

[IDEA]

I think that law is trying to explain that once software gets more complex it inevitably gets slower. The rate at which this happens is greater than the rate at which hardware can catch up.

 

[SidVicious]

Don't overlook the impact of the On-Die Memory Controller on A64's. Being able to adress memory directly yeild a noticeable decrease in latency and a nice improvement in bandwidth compared to P4 which still rely on the saturated northbridge to get to the memory.

Not wanting an A64 for not needing 64bit instructions and the adress range that comes with it is a moot point, both the A64 and high end P4 include that feature.

P4 have problems that the A64 don't have, main problem it the heat they generate by wasting current through leakage, there is also issues with their anemic IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) which require code to be optimised for them to perform and the reliance on the Northbridge which bottleneck the memory bandwidth.

Sure, Intel do plan to adress those issues with their next CPU architecture but comparing not yet relased products with current ones is futile at best.

No matter which company between AMD and Intel ends up being the performance leader by then is'nt important, only the innovations they bring to the market count as they put more and more computing power in the hands of the consumer.

 

[endyen]

but in that league I'm not convinced that I shouldn't buy a P4 rather.

Then you really haven't been paying much attetion lately. The A64s eat a couple of P4s before breakfast.
While the P4c chips were better than the xp chips, an A64 is better than a P4c.
The prescotts on the other hand, would be closer to the xp chips, except that they run a lot hotter.