Processor speed barrier?

[Runemaster]

It would seem that the 4.0ghz barrier or close to it anyways, hasn't been broken only because of cooling issues. if we continued to go up in speed the processor would ultimately melt it self due to heat given off by the electrical current running through it.The highest ive seen is 3.8ghz, has anyone seen anything higher?

[bobwrit]

the mac pro

[paulsiu]

http://www.overclockingwiki.org/joomla/ ... oject.html

[Flash]

Three questions beg to be asked: does the faster CPU get any more useful work done, how much more power does it use and does it make the computer less reliable?

[Runemaster]

overclocking aside. im talking out of the box clock speed....

Mac pro gets maxed out at 3.0ghz

1. depends on what you use it for

2.depends on clock speed

3.probably so, anymore clock speed and you'd have your gold pins dripping out of your cpu socket, seeing as how gold has a low melting pont and is easily manipulated.

i would give more specific answers, but in order to do so, i need specific q's.

[jason.b.c]

um..?

5.6 ghz...

[Runemaster]

Was that out of the box or factory settings?

[ZSS9393]

It would seem that the 4.0ghz barrier or close to it anyways, hasn't been broken only because of cooling issues. if we continued to go up in speed the processor would ultimately melt it self due to heat given off by the electrical current running through it.The highest ive seen is 3.8ghz, has anyone seen anything higher?

1.The fastest clock speed I've ever seen? 3.8GHz, P4ExtremeEdition
2.Why care about clock speeds? GHz don't make the chip any faster, it's the actual speed of the chip that matters. Hz are cycles per second, and IPC is instructions per cycle. If a chip runs a 3GHz, it gets three billion cycles per second. But, if it only gets 1 IPC, a 1.5GHz chip that gets 3IPC will toast the 3.8GHz chip.
3.AMD was making chips with high IPCs and low GHz, and Intel was making chips with high GHz and low IPCs. The AMD chips usually beat the intel, performance and cooling wise. Now the tides have changed, AMD is still making the same chips, but Intel's new Core 2 line has high IPCs, just like AMD was doing.

[Runemaster]

I know clock cycles aren't everything, i was just wondering if anyone had seen anything higher. Architecture is another considerable factor in how much data can be processed at one time. A 64-bit processor processing 8 bytes would blow a 32-bit x86 processor processing 4 bytes per clock cycle out of the water any day of the week. As long as you have the right software to match it. Which brings me to another point. Why in the hell are these companies releasing models with x64 processors and only a 32-bit o.s., it kind of defeats the purpose if you know what I mean, and if I'm missing something, then by all means, someone enlighten me.

P.S. - I've read on a few websites that on some cpus, that people were able to break off certain pins on the cpu to trick it into thinking its a different model thus running itself at a different clock speed. In this case software overclocking would not be needed. Anyone else heard of this???

[jason.b.c]

Was that out of the box or factory settings?

factory setting..

2.8 ghz x2 = 5.6 ghz

[Runemaster]

ok look, normally when a company sells a cpu that is dual or quad core they just put the speed that all the cores run not the speed of all the cores added together. Have you ever seen a cpu come in a box that said 5.6Ghz? I didn't think so, it's just gonna be marked as having a clock speed of 2.8Ghz...... I've got a Pentium D Dual Core running at 3.0Ghz but I dont walk Around saying that I've got a 6.0Ghz cpu.....

Anyone else????!?!?!?!

[jason.b.c]

ok look, normally when a company sells a cpu that is dual or quad core they just put the speed that all the cores run not the speed of all the cores added together. Have you ever seen a cpu come in a box that said 5.6Ghz? I didn't think so, it's just gonna be marked as having a clock speed of 2.8Ghz...... I've got a Pentium D Dual Core running at 3.0Ghz but I dont walk Around saying that I've got a 6.0Ghz cpu.....

Anyone else????!?!?!?!

um no..! ok look...

you have that backwards.., a dual core cpu is two cpu's put together on one grid., one side 2.8 and the other 2.8 ghz - when added together you get 5.6..

don't try to argue much with me about this , i've had all this explained to me several times by people who know a whole hell of a lot more than you or i do...

[cb88]

think about this Ghz is clock frequency the processors do not multipy or add to the frequency but increase processing BANDWIDTH. it is like having dual isdn internet conections the BANDWIDTH is doubled but the frequency and also the latency remains exactly the same. non-multi threaded programs don't run faster on multi core cpus although it may be given a larger share of processing time since there is more BANDWIDTH.
A non multi threaded program running by its self will run faster on a 3.8 ghz pentium 4 than on a dual core pentium running at 2.5 ghz per core.
often cpu manufacturers list cpu speed as 2.5GHZ x 2 or 2.3GHZ x 4
the multipier denotes bandwith and is not multipication of frequency.

this is about as logical an explination as you can get any other explination is likely an offshoot of manufacturer propaganda that they will liklely end up sued for similarly to hard disk manufacturers over disk size.

@jason.b.c you add bandwidth not frequency the frequency is constant unless you are an overclocker

there is also a difference in bandwidth between 64bit and 32bit but that is kind of obvious.

[Runemaster]

Thank you........Anyone else out there. On a more simple note, not trying to show you out or anything cb88. I'm just going to try to dull it down a bit. Think of it as a major highway, the more lanes you have the more payload the highway can carry. It's not about how fast the cars can go through, but merely how many can get through within a given amount of time.

[cb88]

would train tracks make an even better analogy?

[Runemaster]

Yes, excellent analogy.