Well this didn't happen...

[TheIcedCanadian]

Intel have really pushed themselves with this guess from 2000. Almost 15 years later, we are still only running at around 3.5GHz. Moore's Law also didn't prove correct in this case... Just imagine 128GHz CPUs... POWER POWER POWER

http://www.geek.com/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-564808/

[Swndlr]

LOL:

 

[Jaybird]

The difference is CPUs now consume far less energy while doing more. Sometimes more ghz isn't what matters

[EarthboundHero]

Maybe if we were still in single core CPU's. Event then it's doubtful in the next decade.

[CoolaxGaming]

. Intel didnt even break the 5GHZ barrier.

 

 

YAY AMD!

Honestly, we will see a message in 2016 from AMD saying

 

"THE WORLDS FIRST 10 CORE 10 GHZ CPU FOR ULTRA HARDCORE GAMING"

 

Yeah lets try it out, but when compared to intel it is ___________________________________

Complete the sentence!

[TheIcedCanadian]

IBM made a 350GHz (room temp) 500GHz (-451ºF) in 2007!!!

http://www.techspot.com/news/21961-ibm-produces-500ghz-silicon-germanium-cpu.html

[Manny Calavera]

5.2ghz (assuming really good cooling and sample) * 16 threads = 83,2 "ghz"

 

close enough

 

anyway, wait for graphene chips  and with photons instead of electrons

and/or some other 2d materials

[Manny Calavera]

LOL:

 

i love how accurate they were with "early, mid, early, mid, ..." top lel

 

btw. we still have 2008 8 core from amd, at 5.x ghz sooooo...

[vlkn´]

The difference is CPUs now consume far less energy while doing more. Sometimes more ghz isn't what matters

thats what she said 

[TheIcedCanadian]

i love how accurate they were with "early, mid, early, mid, ..." top lel

 

btw. we still have 2008 8 core from amd, at 5.x ghz sooooo...

4690k pretty much the same as the FX 9590. They are same price. Proof that Intel makes better cpus. Half the cores and 1GHz less and still performs just as well.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/2432vs1812

[Manny Calavera]

4690k pretty much the same as the FX 9590. They are same price. Proof that Intel makes better cpus. Half the cores and 1GHz less and still performs just as well.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/2432vs1812

of course intel makes better cpus. thats why they charge premium for it. if amd was on 20nm with new architecture and hyper-threading we wouldn't see such ridiculous prices

 

i mean just the fact that intel is - deliberately - disabling hyper-threading on the processors is insane

 

charge 50$ for hyperthreadin n all... even more for i7...

[DIV1D3]

Isn't Moore's Law somewhere along the lines of "Processing power", not "Processor speed"...

 

Edit:

It's about the transistor count in an integrated circuit, so saying that the processor clock speed (universally) should be doubling every two years is just plain stupid. 

Transistor density =/= clock speed (directly). 

[stconquest]

Does not Moore's law relate to transistor count?  Transistors have been getting smaller, but so do the chips.  See, the smaller the chips... the more CPU's a company can get out of the wafer.  More CPU's off a single wafer, the more money they can make.

[stconquest]

Isn't Moore's Law somewhere along the lines of "Processing power", so not "Processor speed"...

I believe so.  Transistors.

[DIV1D3]

I believe so.  Transistors.

Yeah, I edited my post. 

But seriously, just shrinking the transistor density does not directly affect the clock speed of the processor, so as long as I'm understanding this OP correctly, it's somewhat off topic to Moore's Law.

[stconquest]

Yeah, I edited my post. 

But seriously, just shrinking the transistor density does not directly affect the clock speed of the processor, so as long as I'm understanding this OP correctly, it's somewhat off topic to Moore's Law.

More transistors has the potential to increase the clock rate as there are more "switches" to turn on and off.  As we get closer and closer to 1 micron transistors, we get closer to the end of Moore's Law.  We cannot physically get transistors (or the gap) smaller than an atom...or can we? =D

 

Truth be told, quantum computing is the leading edge in terms of processing power.  I was amazed/surprised that they really DO EXIST.  "3x5=15", the supposed first calculation made by a QBit based CPU.  Google even has one =D.

 

Oh, and I suspect the same about the thread topic's relation to Moore's Law.  No big deal.  It is a fun topic. =)

[ArifBrick]

AMD also did made a prediction recently saying by every year, their processors will become more energy efficient.

[stconquest]

AMD also did made a prediction recently saying by every year, their processors will become more energy efficient.

Smaller die, more transistors, less TDP, more chips per wafer...win/win/win/win.

[MLG Doge]

. Intel didnt even break the 5GHZ barrier.

 

 

YAY AMD!

Honestly, we will see a message in 2016 from AMD saying

 

"THE WORLDS FIRST 10 CORE 10 GHZ CPU FOR ULTRA HARDCORE GAMING"

 

Yeah lets try it out, but when compared to intel it is ___________________________________

Complete the sentence!

The AMD chip will also be the first to reach 10,000,000 Degrees too!

[bob345]

modern chips have much better performance per clock than older chips which is why the speed has not changed very much.

[GoldSrc]

I love the comments.

 

well…… (7:59pm EST Wed Jul 26 2000)
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

lol

 

And then we have this guy who thinks that you can multiply the speed of each core

 

WoW, this topic is old. (12:57am EST Fri Nov 18 2005)
Well, it's almost 2006 and we don't even have 4 GHz processors as a standard.

Although dual-core processors are now available. Windows Vista is arriving within a year, and we're kicking up to 64bit OSs.

Pentium Extreme Edition (Dual): 2 x 3.2 = 6.4Ghz

Xbox 360(Tri): 3 x 3.2 = 9.6Ghz

Power Mac G5 (Dual x Dual): (2 x 2.4) x 2 = 9.6Ghz
- by Satsuki

 

And there there's a guy from 4 years ago who still thinks the same lol

 

Travis Calder • 4 years ago

Man, what a trip to find this page in 2011 and read all the silly predictions.

At least Intel reined it in a bit, and to be fair quad-core CPUs at 3GHz each is effectively 12GHz if you manage to get the thing working at 100%.

With advances being made in proper usage of multi-core CPUs, it turns out Intel were the only guys even relatively close to the mark, and only in a round-about way.

Too bad, I was looking forward to my 128GHz Quantum DNA computer that operates in hex instead of binary.

 

Just imagine, how people will look at our technology in 10, 20 years.

[ThatAngryGnome]

LOL:

 

Cause thats how CPU's work