why no 4 Ghz??

[ZemoButts]

why arent there any 4 Ghz computers being released?

[kennyknoxville]

little side note: did you know that if the car industry advanced as fast as computers, wed all be driving cars that went @ the speed of sound for only a nickel. woah

why arent there any 4 Ghz computers being released?
i have no clue

[Guest]

now both intel and AMD have stopped increasing clockspeed and gone for enhancing other parts of the processor (like cache)

[deffenbaugh03]

Dell XPS's have 3.8, isn't that enough for you? BTW they are amazing computers. At our school we have a whole lab full of XPS gen 5's for running 3ds Max 7.

another little side note...did you guys here about those nw cd's that hold like 120gb developed by some french company? Anyone know when they'll be available to the public.

[jaromull]

Well, I do would like the idea of using the heat generated by such a 4 GHz processor instead of central heating with a real pleasure, indeed.

[Blue Supra]

The heat punched out would warm a siberian household. as said before theyre increasing cache and bus speed. I would prefer a 2.4GHz with a 2MB cache and a 1Ghz FSB then a current average 3.4Ghz processor

[kennyknoxville]

another little side note...did you guys here about those nw cd's that hold like 120gb developed by some french company? Anyone know when they'll be available to the public.
wow. that sounds incredible. there goes the need for hard drives

[Matra et Alpine]

another little side note...did you guys here about those nw cd's that hold like 120gb developed by some french company? Anyone know when they'll be available to the public.
Given that the Sony camp and the Toshiba camp are fighting over the next gen format and each deplying their own solution, I'd not hold out for a small company on the side getting any exposure :(
Do you have a link ? Not likely to be worth it though with Blu Ray giving 50Gb then next technology change in media shoudl be in to 500G range - OR my favourite is the cube with no moveable parts other than a couple of laser beams :) Stop all this spinning discs and moving heads nonsense :D

[ZemoButts]

now whats cache??

as for the discs are you talking about the holographic ones?

[fa22_raptor]

little side note: did you know that if the car industry advanced as fast as computers, wed all be driving cars that went @ the speed of sound for only a nickel. woah

What a fat load of bullsh*t :)

[Solstice]

Intel and AMD have gone away from clockspeed. The focus of their designs have now switched to multicore processors.

[BjD]

7GHz tbh (http://news.softpedia.com/news/7GHz-Pentium-6202.shtml)

Cache is a small amount of high speed memory mounted on the CPU die (or in the immediate vicinity on old slot based CPU's). Its used to store the data the processor is working on at that time so its not having to read/write to the system RAM as much.

[Matra et Alpine]

What a fat load of bullsh*t :)
Look up Moore's Law about computing complexity - computers have doubled every two years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Wgsimonmooreslaw001.jpg

Now think about that for a car that could do 20mph and 10mpg a 100 years ago :)

Hint it works out about 40,000 mph and 20,000 mpg :D

So you're right for the wrong reasons, Kenny was being too conservative !!!!

[kennyknoxville]

What a fat load of bullsh*t :)

So you're right for the wrong reasons, Kenny was being too conservative !!!!
oh snap raptor, you got grandpopped

[tmnt_ppn]

Look up Moore's Law about computing complexity - computers have doubled every two years.


i thought it was every 18 months?

[deffenbaugh03]

i thought it was every 18 months?

Well if you look at Matra's chart the points are below the "doubling every 18 months" and the "doubling every 24 months" so on estimate I would say that 2 years is a better estimate than 18 months seeing as how there's 12 months in a year and the the scatter points aren't even above the 24 month line.

[Kommercial]

RAM will always be more important in running a quick system, than the processor. Sure, the processor speed is good, but RAM definately makes the only real noticeable difference.

[Matra et Alpine]

RAM will always be more important in running a quick system, than the processor. Sure, the processor speed is good, but RAM definately makes the only real noticeable difference.
depends on what it is that's being done.
For a memory-intensive activity liek graphic or video then RAM speed it crucial.
For compute intensive then it's the processor.
The cache is what makes the perfoermance less dependant on RAM for msot tasks

[Kommercial]

depends on what it is that's being done.
For a memory-intensive activity liek graphic or video then RAM speed it crucial.
For compute intensive then it's the processor.
The cache is what makes the perfoermance less dependant on RAM for msot tasks

I have no idea what exactly you're saying? I can have a 2GHz processor running a GB of DDR, and I can be running faster than a system with a 4GHz processor with 256 DDR. RAM is crucial in anything you do on the PC.

[Matra et Alpine]

I have no idea what exactly you're saying? I can have a 2GHz processor running a GB of DDR, and I can be running faster than a system with a 4GHz processor with 256 DDR. RAM is crucial in anything you do on the PC.
not always.
If the 2G processor has a large enough cache it may very seldom access memory. That can get the perfromance way up ( unlikely to get it double the spede tho' except in the special cases they tune benchmarks for :) )
Infromation in RAM comes into the on-board cache of the processor FIRST> If the computing is working on data in the cache then the RAM speed is irrelevant once the cache is filled. Only when it needs to fetch more data from RAM does it then ahve to go into wait-states on the RAM feeding the cache. More cache in a CPU is a better investment than a slightly faster RAM for most real world cases.
You've mentinoed SIZE of ram rather than speed. THAT's a different performacne issue as then yu're having to use virtual memory which is on disk - WAY slower :(

[kennyknoxville]

i was going to warn you not to mess with matra

[Matra et Alpine]

i was going to warn you not to mess with matra
leave him alone, k, he's asking and trying to understand.
processor technology isnt' easy and there IS a load of BS out there :D

[spi-ti-tout]

That can get the perfromance way up ( unlikely to get it double the spede tho' )
Aren't the two the same?
For example if you have a normal not very expensive 'puta and you load on Photoshop (a random example of a big program to load), it might takes around 10 seconds. BUT on the hi-performance computer it might take two. Isn't that what hi-performance is supposed to mean??
Well thats my understanding anyway

[Matra et Alpine]

soi, what 'two' things were you referring to ??

your example is fine if you load programs all the time, spi.

Likewise if your'e doing video editing then you want LOTS of VERY fast RAM *AND* VERY fast disks

If you're doing complex calclulations on a small sample of information a few million data points then processor core clock speed becomes the major factor.

So for some folks a VERY fast $400 graphics card is MUST to do the job. For most office applications a $30 will do. For some a 2G processor will only me a few percentage points slower at an office task than a 3G processor. There are millions of real world examples like that.

Crudely put though faster and bigger is better, it's just not linear adn not simple :D