Which theoretical processor would you rather have??

[DarthPiggie]

I personally think that obviously with the state of multi-threading, you would never EVER use all thousand cores at once. Creating multi-threaded applications is just very difficult. So the strategy that the CPU companies are pursuing of increasing the number of cores is becoming increasingly moot. Next-Gen, we are supposed to have a 8-core processor, and possibly a 16-core one. I think a processor clocked at 1000Ghz would perform faster than the speed of light, effectively traveling back in time. Anyway,regarding heat and power comsumption, which will produce more heat and consume more power??I take it the 1 Thz processor would.

 

[lucuis]

Agreed, at this exact moment, a 1Thz processor would perform leaps and bounds over 1000 1ghz processors in todays consumer applications.

On a side note, it's much easier to write multi thread code for 1000 processors then it would be to engineer a 1thz processor.

 

[DarthPiggie]

if i had one wish it would be a working tera-hertz processor that stays cool and fits into skt 775

 

[emp]

Obviously the faster single core processor, because just like you said, right now the software is not scaling well enough to make it worth it. The only application that might have a chance to run well enough on a 1000-core CPU to challenge a single core @ 1000Ghz would be Raytracing me thinks...?

 

[cliffro]

wait....can we at least make that Thz CPU Dual Core? 😉

 

[lucuis]

I wonder if we will ever see a Terra Hertz processor.

I mean we did go from 1mhz to 1ghz pretty quickly.

Or do you think we'll continue on he multi core path.

 

[DarthPiggie]

As I said, Intel and AMD are apparently headed for more cores, which really wont improve performance too much. We need faster clock speeds damn it. I want to play my RTS games like SupCom with nice frames. 100,000 units with CPU calculating all the pathfinding and AI . CPUs are becoming bottlenecks now, its a shame. I doubt we'll get to the Tera-Hertz mark any time soon, We are still in the single digits for Ghz.

 

[imrul]

I think a processor clocked at 1000Ghz would perform faster than the speed of light, effectively traveling back in time.

when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.

 

[DarthPiggie]

when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.when you make it faster than the speed of light, its time loop will be faster than the universe around it so it will travel forewards in time, not backwards.

Well when you travel close to the speed of light, everything arpound you speeds up, but time for you stays at a normal pace. It's all relative but if approaching the speed of light made you travel forwards in time, then passing the limit may have the opposite effect.

 

[alfrido]

well lets not go overboard here.
Well theoretically 10 Ghz with 50mb cache with 20Nm technology this is next gen stuff guys.

It stays cool under 50 degrees. XD

 

[DarthPiggie]

Unfortunately, it doesnt look like that is the directio we are headed in, I wish that were, true. I would love that much cache and 10Ghz to boot.

 

[angry_ducky]

Hundreds... of years in the future... there could be computers... looking for life on Earth...

Don't fight for the wrong side.....

-"Twisted Logic" by Coldplay

 

[angry_ducky]

Why not just make faster, more efficient, single core processors and then slam 4 of those on a chip?

Although there is a clear advantage to multiple cores; all the background processes don't significantly slow down your computer.

 

[jimmysmitty]

i think more cores is more efficient the problem is the software....

You could not be more correct. 1000 1GHz CPUs would do leaps and bounds in virtualization but our consumer software is just so far behing hardware. If software and games properly took advantage of the CPUs we have today and will have (Nehalem and whatever AMD has cooking) we would see performance gains by the 100x.

But we are stuck with it. Oh well here is hoping to better software soon.

 

[horendus]

Would it be quicker to process complex simulation such as an "Earth Simulator"?

Id guess all software up until this point in history would run better on a single 1Thz processor so id choose that....

however

In the future, as programs become more and more complex it will become more logical to split the code into logical threads for multiple cores.

1 massive thread would just be to ilogical imo.

Hmm...I wonder what would be able to processes more data over a set period of time.....1000 threads being processed at 1GHZ or 1 thread being processed at 1Thz?

 

[Crazy-PC]

Depends on the development of Operation and softwares, if Parallel computing become popular, 1000 x 1GHZ CPU would be preferred over but just with the high power consuming problem

Based on the existing structure of Operation system and software, 1THZ CPU would be preferred over.

 

[yadge]

Would it be quicker to process complex simulation such as an "Earth Simulator"?

Id guess all software up until this point in history would run better on a single 1Thz processor so id choose that....

however

In the future, as programs become more and more complex it will become more logical to split the code into logical threads for multiple cores.

1 massive thread would just be to ilogical imo.

Hmm...I wonder what would be able to processes more data over a set period of time.....1000 threads being processed at 1GHZ or 1 thread being processed at 1Thz?

I'd say pretty much they would be the same exact speed. Except for the fact that the multicore one would probably lose some performance because it has to communicate with itself through the cores.

I don't think a multicore processor would ever beat a single core processor with indentical theoretical computational power.

I mean, sure dual cores are good for "keeping the background processes on a different core". But I think if you had a single core processor with the core 2 duo architecture at 6Ghz, it could get those background processes out of the way just as effectively as a regular core 2 duo at 3ghz.

 

[bushmastertd]

I mean, sure dual cores are good for "keeping the background processes on a different core". But I think if you had a single core processor with the core 2 duo architecture at 6Ghz, it could get those background processes out of the way just as effectively as a regular core 2 duo at 3ghz.

agree 100%

 

[yadge]

Yeah. I guess what I mean is that adding more cores is an effective way of increasing performance (when software complies), but an equally powerful single core processor would be just as good, if not slightly better. It just seems like people think the more cores the better. And while this is partially true, that doesn''t mean that a single core is gonna suck.

 

[JDocs]

Has anybody thought of the processors IPC. A 1000ghz processor with 1 IPC is basically the same as a 1ghz processor with a 1000 IPC.

This is why AMDs 3ghz(3 IPC) out ran the P4 3.8ghz (2 IPC) and why Core 2 at 2.4ghz (4 IPC) can take on a P4 dual at 4ghz (2 IPC) and still win. The future isn't more cores (yes they help but only to a certain point) or going over 4ghz (heat and power comsumption reasons) but higher IPCs.

 

[yadge]

Exactly. It's the architecture that really matters. But in this situation we're assuming it's the same architecture, and in that case, I would say that the single core would be better.

And yeah though, people are too caught up with adding more cores and the gigahertz war. But really, I think it'd be fine to keep around the same speed processors as long as they get faster.

 

[kad]

i guess we will never find out lol maybe our children will

Are you sure??
I bet it is here and some are using it
When it becomes an old tech it will be released for public

 

[DarthPiggie]

Yea well they need to get faster, faster. The way I see it, maintream processor development has slowed to a crawl.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

True about the LAN speed, but if everything was instantly done on the desktop, no waiting, as well as real lifelike games, and at 1 Thz, wed probly be seeing 3D in everything, itd work for me. But this is a no brainer. 1000 chips could never ever keep up with one 1000 times faster. The reason is, having all those threads would be impossible, and the compilation would still be done at 1000th the speed of the single Thz cpu.

 

[spoonboy]

As I said, Intel and AMD are apparently headed for more cores, which really wont improve performance too much. We need faster clock speeds damn it. I want to play my RTS games like SupCom with nice frames. 100,000 units with CPU calculating all the pathfinding and AI . CPUs are becoming bottlenecks now, its a shame. I doubt we'll get to the Tera-Hertz mark any time soon, We are still in the single digits for Ghz.

Supcom is just the game for multicores though. You know when units shoot at each other and such its not just a simple animation set off, theres proper trajectory calcualtions for each shot. Hence things chug bad when big armies come together, its not the vid card side, its the cpu being strained. Supcom is also weird vecause the fps dives as soon as you hold down space and pan the camera around, even early in a gamer when theres jack all on screen/in your base.