Why don't amd or intel do this?

[KingOfSoldiers]

What I'd rather see myself is a CPU like this :
4cores 8 threads 
20 - 30mb cache
4.7ghz+ base clock turbo upto 5ghz and a tdp around 120 - 140
Pretty much a higher base clock per core and more cache but also keeping around 4 cores cos not much more is really need then 4 cores

remember the old Pentium 4 single core at 2ghz

[Xenift]

Engineering a CPU isn't that simple. There are a million other factors than just thinking what you want to fit inside of it.

[KingOfSoldiers]

I know that but imagine the market on a CPU like that why not even if it for only the super rich lol

[Xenift]

1 minute ago, KingOfSoldiers said:

I know that but imagine the market on a CPU like that why not even if it for only the super rich lol

an i7-7700k has 8MB of cache.

Cache if you didn't know, is in essence insanely fast memory storage, used by the CPU to store important instructions.

Lower speed cache lowers performance of a CPU greatly.

It is not up to technological standards yet to produce such a high speed cache at non enthusiast prices.

Literally meaning whatever you mentioned, even if they could do it, would cost more than thousands of dollars each.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Thermals

18 minutes ago, KingOfSoldiers said:

What I'd rather see myself is a CPU like this :
4cores 8 threads 
20 - 30mb cache
4.7ghz+ base clock turbo upto 5ghz and a tdp around 120 - 140
Pretty much a higher base clock per core and more cache but also keeping around 4 cores cos not much more is really need then 4 cores

remember the old Pentium 4 single core at 2ghz

Thermals and price.

 

If they released a processor with a 4.7ghz base clock they'd need an extremely beefy cooler, probably a decent watercooler actually. 6700k taps out around 5ghz on air and thats far from a 24/7 overclock. A lot of tech enthusiasts would be willing to buy but a lot of people just want a simple air cooled system that's reliable.

[Sauron]

Everything you described tells us nothing about performance. there's too much to take into consideration that you're ignoring.

[Syntaxvgm]

I'm gonna leave these here

https://ark.intel.com/products/93791/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8893-v4-60M-Cache-3_20-GHz

https://ark.intel.com/products/84688/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8893-v3-45M-Cache-3_20-GHz

[manikyath]

we've reached what seems to be a ceiling in terms of frequency, and pretty much intel has done what you're referring to with a skylake i3 at 3.9GHz, which is higher than the 6700's base clock, and 100MHz below it's boost clock.

 

as for cache... you should see how much die space tha 8MB cache on an i7 takes up, and then you realise how much of what you're paying is for the cache.

 

i dont see any modern cpu coming out any time soon that sports 5GHz out the box, simply because at that speed stuff is going that fast there's more issues than just TDP.

 

to draw the picture: at 3GHz the time between two cycles is 333 picoseconds (or 0.333 nanoseconds, or 3.33*10^-10, if you prefer) by which essentially, in one clock cycle electricity can travel 10 cm, at 5GHz that's down to 6cm, and beyond that.. we're essentially hitting a point where an electrical signal cannot travel from one side of the die to the other, if we're not going in a straight line. we either need to go smaller, or we need to live with the fact that we're simply at a roof.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

 

i dont see any modern cpu coming out any time soon that sports 5GHz out the box, simply because at that speed stuff is going that fast there's more issues than just TDP.

 

but mah 9590 

220 watts brah 

[manikyath]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

but mah 9590 

220 watts brah 

is 4.7GHz out the box

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, manikyath said:

is 4.7GHz out the box

If I can get my 5820k to 4.5GHz at 1.25 volts, I'm sure they can bin the right quad core to run at 5GHz out of the box and not melt things if they wanted to do what AMD did there. Which would be dumb. And not practical. Like the 9590

[manikyath]

9 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

If I can get my 5820k to 4.5GHz at 1.25 volts, I'm sure they can bin the right quad core to run at 5GHz out of the box and not melt things if they wanted to do what AMD did there. Which would be dumb. And not practical. Like the 9590

the thing is, you can do that, but it doesnt come "out the box" like that.

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, manikyath said:

the thing is, you can do that, but it doesnt come "out the box" like that.

cause that would be stupid. Like a 9590

[manikyath]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

cause that would be stupid. Like a 9590

exactly my point

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, manikyath said:

exactly my point

EXACTLY MINE ಠ益ಠ

[jet224presents]

3 hours ago, KingOfSoldiers said:

What I'd rather see myself is a CPU like this :
4cores 8 threads 
20 - 30mb cache
4.7ghz+ base clock turbo upto 5ghz and a tdp around 120 - 140
Pretty much a higher base clock per core and more cache but also keeping around 4 cores cos not much more is really need then 4 cores

remember the old Pentium 4 single core at 2ghz

see 4 core and 8 threads with that decent TDP would be cool but the biggest thing is cache if they could squeeze a lot more on that would be great plus clock speed is not a real useful number without per clock performance data.

[Dylanc1500]

4 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I'm gonna leave these here

https://ark.intel.com/products/93791/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8893-v4-60M-Cache-3_20-GHz

https://ark.intel.com/products/84688/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8893-v3-45M-Cache-3_20-GHz

I'd honestly like to see the capabilities of them. Since the v4 averages around 7k a piece.

[Coaxialgamer]

That cache takes up a considerable amount of space. Nearly one quarter of the 7700k die is just 8mb of l3 cache. 

Making a cpu with 30mb cache would not only considerably increase die area, it would make the whole design considerably more complex. There are rules to how cache behaves. 

 

Assuming two pools of cache running at the same T-rate:

-Doubling capacity doubles latency

-Making multi way cache decreases latency, but needs better branch prediction to avoid landing a cache miss, as you are essentially splitting the pool into multiple parts and reading them in parallel. 

-Better branch prediction algorithms/circuitry is insanely complicated and expensive to develop, and takes up die space. 

 

Cpus are incredibly sensitive to latency due to the nature of their workloads ( for example, gpus give up latency for throughput as it suits their workloads better). This was a huge issue for bulldozer, and is an issue for ryzen atm ( high latency ram access). 

 

Plus, there's the fact that workloads needing only 4 cores typically don't need much cache anyway. You're better off adding more cache to your high core count SKU's. 

 

Plus, Intel's main consumer market isn't enthusiasts. It's OEM's selling to mainstream consumers. 

Intel would rather sell 65-91w parts in those cases than bump up clocks well past the efficiency point of their chips and increase tdp to 140w.

The average consumer wouldn't notice the performance bump but would notice the extra heat, power and size their pc uses. 

 

Sure the demand is out there, but not enough to justify a special SKU. 

[Remixt]

7 hours ago, KingOfSoldiers said:

What I'd rather see myself is a CPU like this :
4cores 8 threads 
20 - 30mb cache
4.7ghz+ base clock turbo upto 5ghz and a tdp around 120 - 140
Pretty much a higher base clock per core and more cache but also keeping around 4 cores cos not much more is really need then 4 cores

remember the old Pentium 4 single core at 2ghz

Other than the logistics of implementing this physically, you don't want to have a large cache on a small processor. It would defeat the purpose of having a cache and slow the processor down for quick retrieval.