10GHz processors in 2011

[Hockster]

Or so said Intel....
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-20000726/

 

[Arrakis9]

lol interesting find especially something that old

 

[Hockster]

The comments are pretty funny.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They said that back with Netburst. Netburst failed Intel though (never even reached 4 GHz) so yeah, it's history.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

Well I mean the P4 has reached 10ghz, but really, it is not that great. GHZ means nothing really, just a number at this point, where higher is not actually better.

 

[MilkyWay]

Clock for clock efficiency means a lot more rather than what intel used to do, just pump it full of raw speed and cache, like steroids KINDA?

A 2010 prediction must be old because we are far from that i think.

 

[KainXS]

back in 2000 the P4 was new and intel still thought netburst was the way to go, this coming after they abandoned the P3 architecture(irony) but in about 2003 AMD stomped intel with its athlons, intel realized that trying to increase Ghz was pointless because after about 3.5Ghz on the P4 performance was not linear one bit, and by this time, everyone who knew something about CPU's knew netburst was a complete failure, so instead of continuing the Ghz war with AMD's more efficient CPU's they tried to make a dual CPU(Pentium D) which wasnt that bad, but it was easy to see it would fail short in the long end, so intel looked back and continued as if the Pentium 4 never existed, the Pentium 4 was a failure that killed he Pentium name, and the successor to the P4 was also scrapped(it was a netburst too).

If the Netburst didn't fail we might have had 10Ghz stock cpu's who knows, 10Ghz cpu's that sucked complete ass compared to what we have now.

 

[brandonwh64]

This is like people in the 80s saying we would have flying cars in the year 2000s

 

[DrPepper]

I like looking for the posts that were actually accurate.

 

[mdsx1950]

Or so said Intel....
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-20000726/

Lmao. Those comments are hilarious. Nice find.

 

[John Phoenix]

This is like people in the 80s saying we would have flying cars in the year 2000s

Actually.. we do have flying cars. (hehehe) We have had them along with cars that run on water/hydrogen since the 60's. GM made a model in the 1966 that ran on water converted to hydrogen, got like 100 miles to the gallon. There is a kit you can buy to turn your gas powered car into one.

As for the skycars, they have been around for years too. I think the problem is government regulation. They don't want the people to have these types of technology so fast because they will lose control of the people and how they use the technology.

I feel the same thing is happening with this processor business. It's not that they "cant" do a 10 ghz chip that works well.. it's that they arent allowed to.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Skycar

http://www.hydrogencarinfo.com/firsthydrogencar.html

 

[kid41212003]

They said that back with Netburst. Netburst failed Intel though (never even reached 4 GHz) so yeah, it's history.

I believe the highest they could get was 3.8GHz?

 

[enaher]

I believe the highest they could get was 3.8GHz?

Yep Ive got a P4 3.6Ghz around here, got it for 45$ two years ago, replaced it with a celeron 1500 , on the other hand the celeron was 5 bucks more and only twice the performance, and a third of the power draw

 

[wolf]

4 hyperthreaded cores @ 3.2 - 2.66ghz launched in 2008 is close enough to 1 core @ 10ghz in 2011 for me.

 

[Zubasa]

Well I mean the P4 has reached 10ghz, but really, it is not that great. GHZ means nothing really, just a number at this point, where higher is not actually better.

Did it?
As far as I remeber the highest a CPU ever clocked was some 8.1Ghz on a Celeron.

 

[Frick]

Did it?
As far as I remeber the highest a CPU ever clocked was some 8.1Ghz on a Celeron.

Yah, that's what I remember to.

 

[Mussels]

those comments are hilarious

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Did it?
As far as I remeber the highest a CPU ever clocked was some 8.1Ghz on a Celeron.

I do recall reading at some point around that time about intel having gotten some cpu up to 10 ghz in the lab. My guess is it was handpicked in a way only they could do and probably not stable at any task.

 

[mdsx1950]

People must have had some huge ass dreams for the future LOL!

 

[enaher]

hahaha the comments are great, some nail what really happend some miss by a long shot, but one thing hasn't changed since then the apple fanboys commenting how unreliable and sucky intel procs are compared to their G4, and how tha mac with a 350 Hz porc beats a 1Ghz intel procesor they surely nailed it with apple never going Intel...

 

[Mussels]

this fanboy, rofl. how wrong he was.

 

[enaher]

http://img.techpowerup.org/100508/Capture651.jpg


this fanboy, rofl. how wrong he was.

LOL thats the one

 

[mdsx1950]

http://img.techpowerup.org/100508/Capture651.jpg


this fanboy, rofl. how wrong he was.

I'm sure that fellow is now using a 6 core AMD or intel lol.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Hahaha check the apple fanboy comment

doesn't matter the speed of intel's chip in 2011 because motorola and ibm will already have chips out by then that are more effective, use energy better, and run applications ready for the new iMac's that are introduced at the 2011 MacWorld. They'll run at somewhere near 7GHz and still be faster than an 11GHz or even 128GHz sh*t that intel puts out.. - by StickWithApple

Read more: http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-20000726/#ixzz0nK3aCaeb

this fanboy, rofl. how wrong he was.[/QUOTE]

Damn we must of been reading that at same time

 

[mdsx1950]

This is one of my favourites.

GoogleHz is a crock, too (1:56pm EST Wed Jul 26 2000)
Will somebody please let me know when we start measuring speed in Gigabytes? Maybe my next hard drive will be a HUGE 100GHz! Maybe even having over a GHz of RAM!!!

And the reason Moore's “law” is so often referenced is because it's been disclaimed over and over, yet it still remains more or less true. Maybe we won't be running 128MHz chips in 2011, but maybe the architecture will be so far advanced that the performance will be equivalent. Who knows, maybe we won't even be runing silicon chips at all by then. Maybe we'll all be running DNA computers, where MHz and GHz and THz are irrelevant. Just think. What kind of computer were you running in 1989? I never dreamed of computers like the one I have (which is low-end, by today's standards) back in 1989.

- by Brian L

Read more: http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-20000726/#ixzz0nK4bXTdL