Processor Speeds

[dar1437]

Why is it that, RAM, Hard Disk etc, the size increases dramatically over the years but processors don't get much faster? (is it to do with heat?)

 

[ekwat]

Why is it that, RAM, Hard Disk etc, the size increases dramatically over the years but processors don't get much faster? (is it to do with heat?)

Moore's Law

Have a read of that for starters.

 

[witchy]

Why is it that, RAM, Hard Disk etc, the size increases dramatically over the years but processors don't get much faster? (is it to do with heat?)

It's something to do with the the faster they go the more heat they generate and the heat slows the overall speed of the CPU, that and something to do with the materials they use not being able to conduct much quicker than they already are.

I think they are developing new bio materials that will allow much faster cpus.

I'm probably talking shite, but that's what I thought was happening.

 

[oneman]

Why, why, why o why do people only look at clock speeds. Efficiency of processors improves over time so a i5 > core2 > P4 if they all ran at the same speed. Throw in variability in multi level caching, number of cores even placement of memory controllers has had an effect on CPU 'speed'. And there is more stuff on the way with potentially new manufacturing processing and completely new technologies which may work like optical switches.

 

[techquest]

Totally agree with oneman on this. Clock speed is really not the best way to look at the speed of your system and is somewhat misleading when you take into consideration number of cores etc.

OLED's have been around for a while and there has been lots of development on organic cells that will replace current technology as they are much faster and more responsive. Not to mention that there has been years of work done on optical switching that does not suffer the effects of heat, crossover or interference etc such as we see in digital switching and computing.

 

[austenerife]

When you compare benchmark tables,processors have gone faster quite a bit in the last 12months with triple,quad and turbo boosted new processors.

 

[oneman]

Got to remember with multicore that unless you are heavily into multitasking then speeding up one application is dependant on how well it uses multicore. Older applications struggled with this.

Newer Intel CPU have a 'turbo boost' (remember how old PC used to have a turbo button, lol) feature that can in some instances shutdown unused cores and boost speed of a specific core.

 

[D1GG3R]

one for the more technical...

is, lets say, a p4 3.4ghz with HT Technology the same as a dual core cpu??

sorry to hijack the thread by the way, im just curious?

DiGG

 

[oneman]

No, even though both show up as 2 CPU in task manager.

HT is a method to utilise underutilised parts of a CPU to excute a second thread (think of a thread as a process).

So basically a 'Core' can do lots of different instructions. Theory is that most programs are not making full use of all of these functions so there are parts of the CPU not doing anything. What hyper threading does is attempt to use these 'unused' parts to run a second thread. Results are very dependant on the applications you use. Best case tests have shown around 30% boost, others have shown that HT can actually slow your system down.

Dual Core, is effectivily having two seperate CPU on one chip. It can excute two seperate threads regardless of what the other core is doing. Programs do need to be optimised for multithreading but expect anything from 60% to 100% speed increase.

BTW, the more cores you have, generally the lower the return rate per core unless your applications are highly optimised for multi-core operations.

To make matters more complicated, you can have 4 core CPU running an application slower then a 2 core CPU with high clock frequency if the application is badly written.


To matter worse, intel mix and match features even within the same CPU family. So you have some i5 CPU support HT, other support Turboboost, some support both, some support neither I think.

Also some AMD CPU sold as 3 core are actually 4 core and can have the 4th core 'unlocked' and there is a whole another topic regarding overclocking where you run a CPU faster then the stated clock frequency.

Hope that clears things up, lol

 

[D1GG3R]

No, even though both show up as 2 CPU in task manager.

HT is a method to utilise underutilised parts of a CPU to excute a second thread (think of a thread as a process).

So basically a 'Core' can do lots of different instructions. Theory is that most programs are not making full use of all of these functions so there are parts of the CPU not doing anything. What hyper threading does is attempt to use these 'unused' parts to run a second thread. Results are very dependant on the applications you use. Best case tests have shown around 30% boost, others have shown that HT can actually slow your system down.

Dual Core, is effectivily having two seperate CPU on one chip. It can excute two seperate threads regardless of what the other core is doing. Programs do need to be optimised for multithreading but expect anything from 60% to 100% speed increase.

BTW, the more cores you have, generally the lower the return rate per core unless your applications are highly optimised for multi-core operations.

To make matters more complicated, you can have 4 core CPU running an application slower then a 2 core CPU with high clock frequency if the application is badly written.


To matter worse, intel mix and match features even within the same CPU family. So you have some i5 CPU support HT, other support Turboboost, some support both, some support neither I think.

Also some AMD CPU sold as 3 core are actually 4 core and can have the 4th core 'unlocked' and there is a whole another topic regarding overclocking where you run a CPU faster then the stated clock frequency.

Hope that clears things up, lol

No then PMSL

I bow at your knowlege oneman :emotions1