Slashdot Mirror


Intel Promises A Cool Billion (Transistors)

NevDull writes: "CNN is reporting that Intel has announced new semiconductor packaging which will lead to CPUs with a billion transistors running at 20GHz within 6 years. Yummy!" The advance here is removing the balls of solder between the chip's packaging and the microprocessor core, which leaves room for more transistors (or a thinner package). Like it says, though, this is years away from your pocket Cray.

238 comments

  1. 1 billion transistors by primal39 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Great! now we'll be able to process Seti packets even more efficiently!

    --
    Eschew Obfuscation
    1. Re:1 billion transistors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      muahahahah.. LOL.. OMG that was so funny I almost wet myself. hihihihi.. ROFLMAO.. You should have your own TV show so you could make us laugh all the time.

  2. Oh great! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    I guess I'll to replace my current system at least twice over the next six years to keep up...

    That's a lotta trasistors!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Oh great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn ! I'll have to upgrade or overclock my 850W 2.45GHz Microwave oven soon before it goes obsolete. Cooking will never be the same.

    2. Re:Oh great! by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll to replace my current system at least twice over the next six years to keep up...

      I don't know about you, but for me three years is a pretty normal turnaround time for going from new PC to obsolescence.

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    3. Re:Oh great! by morcego · · Score: 1

      And now I have to step in and comment.

      Why ? I really don't gasp all this obsolecence happening. The only ones that have some real reason for this to happen are the hardware makers and or dear friend Gatus of Borg.

      I still have some 486 machines running pretty well here (and pretty fast, so you can guess what OS I DON'T use). I have a really nice K6-II as my network server, with something like 70% of idle cpu.

      I know it really gives a kick to have the ultimate, state of the art, machine to play with, but is it really needed ?

      What is happening is not really obsolecence, as far as I'm concerned. It's only market economy, and companies trying to sell new models based on ego, not on need.

      I think it's time for us to review all our concepts of computer obsolecence and requirements.

      --
      morcego
    4. Re:Oh great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure you keep the mechanism of that ASR-33 teletype well lubricated, obsolescence boy.

      Yes, we know. You can do all kinds of cool 80's-style things with that old hardware.

      It's still not worth the power it's consuming for any modern application that the rest of us use computers for.

      Think multimedia, dude. Think real-world stuff. Your /etc/termcap file makes you just look stoopid.

    5. Re:Oh great! by -douggy · · Score: 1

      Degree = physics + computing
      486 = a little to slow for simulations

    6. Re:Oh great! by Grahf666 · · Score: 1

      Think of it: in 6 years, on an Pentium 8 and GeForce 13, can could probably render the Final Fantasy Movie in realtime (or close to it). What more need I say?

  3. Somebody had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine a Bewolf culster of these?

    1. Re:Somebody had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can You Imagine A Beowulf Cluster Intel CPUS with a billion transistors running at a flaming 20GHz SHOVED&nbsp UP&nbsp YOUR&nbsp ASS?!!!!

    2. Re:Somebody had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, mod this one up! It's FUNNY. LAUGH.

    3. Re:Somebody had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unless I'm the goatse.cx guy, which I'm not, so I guess, NO.

    4. Re:Somebody had to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, good point.

  4. Weird prediction... by Hagabard · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why would any CPU manufacturer attempt to predict processor design & clock speed six years into the future? It will be 2007 before this statement can be tested for validity at which point processor design could have changed drastically. Perhaps I should phone Cleo and ask her what the bus speed of my motherboard will be in 2010?

    Hagabard

    1. Re:Weird prediction... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      because right now they're creating the core technologies that will be used for the future processors. they know (from past experience i would assume) that it's going to take them 6 years to get this chip to production and out to the masses.

    2. Re:Weird prediction... by Hagabard · · Score: 1

      Even if the design for the P4 was rolled out in stone 6 years ago there are changes implemented that makes this nothing more than a press release. I agree with the poster below that they took moore's law and threw in a margin of error.

    3. Re:Weird prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their stock is in the crapper and they need postive publicity?

    4. Re:Weird prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "FUD".

      Create fear and doubt that AMD, IBM, Motorola and others don't have any significant advanced R&D capabilities.

      Create uncertainty about committing to a product pipeline that isn't Intel's, because you could miss out on this if you did.

      This month's "Forbes" has a pretty even-handed article on the upcoming Intel vs. AMD war. It's gonna get ugly. Intel is definitely not focused on the customer...

  5. THIS is news? by ErikZ · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ok, their claim, that within 6 years, their chips will be really amazing. I'm surprised that anyone on Slashdot doesn't have a passing familiarity with Moore's law.

    Other late breaking news, within 6 years:

    Cars will be more fuel-efficient
    LCD monitors will be larger
    HDTV will be more common
    More people will be on the Internet
    The Playstation 4 will be released

    I'm shocked that this, this PR move is being shown on Slashdot!

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    1. Re:THIS is news? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 1

      It is like playing Pool or Radiance or Balder's Gate, or some other quest adventure. There is no question you're going to win the game. The fun it how you get there! And, in this case, the fun is watching how to get to an obscenely dense level of electronics running at an amazingly fast speed. ;)

    2. Re:THIS is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 20GHz in 6 years fails to keep up with Moore's law:

      6/1.5 = 4 => 4 doublings
      We have 2GHz chips today.

      2GHz * 2^4 = 32GHz. So, yes you are correct.

    3. Re:THIS is news? by demaria · · Score: 1

      Moore's Law has nothing to do with hertz!

      It is about the number of transistors per integrated circuit.

    4. Re:THIS is news? by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Actually Moore's law doesn't deal purely with processor "speed", it deals with computing "power". Thus a chip at differing clock speeds could have the same functional power. I refer to this article which refers to the P4 2Ghz being the same power as the Athlon 1.4Ghz. These "power" differences can be the result of better pipelining and other chip features. Thus an exact analysis of Moore's law in relation to a 20Ghz chip is tougher. What isn't to say that a drastic change in chip design won't allow for a 10 fold increase in chip "power". Not that I don't think the article isn't overblown, but Moore's law isn't really a factor here.

    5. Re:THIS is news? by sporty · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you'll have to wait 20% longer than the proposed release date of the ps4 to actually get one. (/joke)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    6. Re:THIS is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why's everyone banging on about whether this beats or lags Moore's law, or even worse denigrating with a 'duh! it's just Moore's Law'?

      Moore's law isn't something that just happens, everyone sits back and magically chips get better. Moore's law holds cause there's a whole bunch of bright people doing stuff like this.

      If you're not interested in gaining an insight into the work driving Moore's Law, then skip this article.

    7. Re:THIS is news? by Insane+One · · Score: 1

      This story should be renamed "This just in from the is this really necessary department". 20 ghz?, my fingers only type at one speed....pretty soon the slowest part of the computer is going to be human. :)

      --
      "I have gone to look for myself, If I return before I get back keep me here"
    8. Re:THIS is news? by kryptola · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the future of processor for the next 6 year, but I know that next 6 year, my 233MHz for web and mail server running linux is still good in shape

      --
      "Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer J Simpson.
    9. Re:THIS is news? by Niksie3 · · Score: 1

      it allready is, the normal user is no longer limited by the speed of his/her computer. Like you said, you can only type so fast... Its time something more CPU intensive like a holodeck comes along....

      --
      Sig you!
    10. Re:THIS is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you're just plain right.

      And the 8041 derivative in your keyboard (8 bit keyboard controller chip in the AT) will still be useful too. Nails and wood screws won't be obsolete either.

      Nobody will give a rip, though, because mail and web serving is mundane stuff that any trivial operating system can perform.

    11. Re:THIS is news? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Heh, redundant. I was one of the first 10 posters on this subject and I get a "redundant" hit. Hey Moderators! Read the friggin time stamp!

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  6. As Usual... by macsforever2001 · · Score: 2, Troll

    And as usual, Motorola and IBM will develop this technology first and promise chips as fast as 25 GHz. But in reality, the first IBM/Moto chips will come at 12 GHz at about the time that Intel releases their 20 GHz chips.

    Apple will introduce the chips in it's new iHyperMac which is the size of a quarter with a holographic display but they will be running downclocked to 10 GHz for marketing reasons.

    1. Re:As Usual... by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      In other news, AMD releases a 16 Ghz chip (although they call it the "AMD 16,000" for marketing reasons). It vastly outperforms the Intel 20 Ghz chip and costs a third of the price, but the liquid-nitrogen cooled case is just too damn tricky to build a window kit into, so nobody buys them.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:As Usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Cyrix dominates the market once again.

  7. At what cost? by Mr.+Eradicator · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are they going to continue stretching the pipeline to get these "improved clock speeds"? I personally don't care if it runs at 20 GHz. I want performance.

    --

    That's Mr. Eradicator to you.

    trance-port
    1. Re:At what cost? by Red+Aardvark+House · · Score: 1

      IIRC, faster speeds can be achieved by smaller packaging, since data has shorter distances to travel.

      And if we can fit a billion transisotrs on a processor by then, think of the possibilites for other components like the motherboard and such.

      --

      I like fire ants. They are very spicy!

    2. Re:At what cost? by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      It's a trade off. Intel has 2GHz P4's. Apple has 1GHz G4's. I don't think there's much question that MHz-for-MHz the G4 is a better processor (with some REALLY nice features like Altivec and power saving). But when Intel's P4 is over 1GHz faster, that ceases to matter quite so much.

      Scott

  8. removing balls by ksw2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intel already removed the balls from a processor... it was called "Celeron".

    1. Re:removing balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it's called a P4

    2. Re:removing balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd mod you funny for that one.

    3. Re:removing balls by mirko · · Score: 1

      or any other Intel proc which started as x86 DX und soon became sold as cut-down x86 SX...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    4. Re:removing balls by zpengo · · Score: 2

      Does that mean this chip is a great candidate for Unix (eunuchs) servers?

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    5. Re:removing balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't the main users of Unix already eunuchs? (read: nerds)

    6. Re:removing balls by mallie_mcg · · Score: 1

      Does that mean this chip is a great candidate for Unix (eunuchs) servers?

      No no no, linux (a eunuchs clone from birth) would spend all its time emulating the "balls" instruction that has been removed from the celeron. You would be far better off to give eunuchs a processor with balls and a rod to play with.

      --


      Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
      --I'm not actually after an answer!
  9. True, but... by metlin · · Score: 1

    Like it says, though, this is years away from your pocket Cray.

    Agreed, but this would not be the case if we built computers for one specific purpose - which is exactly what most Crays do. The cheap and abundant processors today have a redundant instruction set with a lot of flaws, and are not made for any specific app.

    If we had RISC processors made for very specific purposes, I'm sure we'd be able to walk around a cray in our pocket :-)

    1. Re:True, but... by Hagabard · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm sure we'd be able to walk around a cray in our pocket :-)


      ...or are you just happy to see me?

    2. Re:True, but... by stinkydog · · Score: 2

      "I'm sure we'd be able to walk around a cray in our pocket :-)"

      But if Intel's current crop is any indication, your bits would burst into flames unless you had Freon cooled undershorts.

      --
      âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
    3. Re:True, but... by metlin · · Score: 1

      ...your bits would burst into flames...

      No way! Because according to Intel, 1 bit is approximately 0.999999999999 bits which is a mathematical impossibility! :-P

    4. Re:True, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a reference to the integer division bug in the original Pentium processor. Obscure, but just because you didn't catch the joke doesn't mean it's not funny.

    5. Re:True, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is supposed to be a jig at Intel's "mathematical precisions" :^) if I'm not mistaken. Right?

    6. Re:True, but... by John+Allsup · · Score: 1


      It goes like this (if you ask my old Pentium anyhow...)



      We all know that 1.0 = 0.99999... (recurring 9's
      ). Thus to the precision available in a 64bit double, we have 1.0 = 0.99999999 (some finite number of 9's). So Intel was correct (to double precision) after all!
      --
      John_Chalisque
  10. Pocket Cray?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If I tried to put that thing in my pocket it'd burn a hole through my leg!

  11. So Microsoft has 6 years... by BluePenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

    to create an OS so bloated that you need a 20 Ghz chip to run it. ::Sigh::

    --
    If I can't see it in Lynx I'm not interested.
    1. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      to create an OS so bloated that you need a 20 Ghz chip to run it. ::Sigh::

      :::cough:::

      It's already here.

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    2. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Tell me about it. A full install of RedHat 7.1 takes 2.4 GB of disk space.

      Oh, were you referring to Windows being bloated? Sorry.

    3. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by hashinclude · · Score: 1

      Microsoft WindowsXXP..... Bringing the power of the 8086 to the [Intel 20Ghz]

      --
      US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
    4. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>to create an OS so bloated that you need a 20 Ghz chip to run it. ::Sigh::

      >It's already here.

      They're porting OS X to the x86 architecture?

    5. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why Windows is so popular... it's way ahead of its time.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    6. Re:So Microsoft has 6 years... by happyhippy · · Score: 0

      Yay, a Windows/Linux fanboy rant in a non-OS topic! How more pathetic can you be... BAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  12. Pocket Cray by tsa · · Score: 1

    We have pocket Crays already, in a manner of speaking. How fast was a Cray in the middle/late 80s?

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Pocket Cray by davy_wavy_42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      right! The Cray-1, introduced in 1976, had 200,000 freon-cooled ICs and could perform 100 million floating point operations per second (100 MFLOPs) so, um, i don't think my Visor can do that, but is anything close?

      At the least, we have *Crays* on our desks...

      --

    2. Re:Pocket cray by mach-5 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The old standby:

      Her: Is that a Cray in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

    3. Re:Pocket cray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      An infinite set has been defined as a set that has a one-to-one mapping to a subset of itself. In that way, the infinity from the beginning of time to the end of time can be mapped directly onto the infinity from his birthtime to the end of time.

      Damn I'm crap at trolling. Lets try harder.

      Suck my fucking cock you Muslim shit-eating faggot. You're talking such utter fucking bollock in reply to some lamer's sig. Get a fucking life, loser

    4. Re:Pocket cray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering you're the tenth person to make that joke, I'd say the old standby is just plain old.

    5. Re:Pocket Cray by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      We have pocket Crays already, in a manner of speaking.

      This is true. The original Crays were roughly cylindrical with a bigger portion at the base. About half of the people out there are already sporting pocket-sized hardware of a similar nature.

    6. Re:Pocket Cray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPaq's with their 233Mhz CPU's top out at around 300MFlops.

      So yes.

      My desktop runs at 3GFlops at this precise moment till I upgrade the two CPU's to be a little more chunky.

    7. Re:Pocket cray by faichai · · Score: 1

      Someone please mod this racist asshole down.

    8. Re:Pocket Cray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe. Funny, but gross. I'm not sure a lot of other people got it though. It took me a minute.

  13. sounds like fun by Lxy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except that clock speed is becoming a useless benchmark. At what point do we realize that Intel's 20 Ghz machine and AMD's 12 Ghz machine have an unnoticable speed difference? If they were talking about a pocket cray as suggested, yes, I guess there is a use for it. They're not talking about supercomputing, they're talking about Pentium 4's!!! At 20 Ghz you'd have to slow the thing down to play Diablo!!

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. Re:sounds like fun by ryu-kun · · Score: 1

      sigh, thats always the case. the general public will ALWAYS buy the thing with the shiniest logo.

    2. Re:sounds like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell do you use these things for ? Considering they will be running at close to 8X the frequency of a microwave oven and probably quarter the wattage of an toaster oven...

      May be we should start using BTU for measuring the amount of heat these suckers can generate.

    3. Re:sounds like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you mean Diablo I. There was no 'run' mode.
      ;)

    4. Re:sounds like fun by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      At 20 Ghz you'd have to slow the thing down to play Diablo!!

      A properly designed game should run at a set speed on any system with enough power to play the game as intended.

      There are many ways to synchronise events (timers, verticle blanks, etc).

      I doubt Diablo II is going to be popular in 6 years, but if it is there isn't any reason why it shouldn't run at it's intended speed unless Blizzard messed something up somewhere.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    5. Re:sounds like fun by Decimal · · Score: 1

      Except that clock speed is becoming a useless benchmark.

      Isn't FLOPS a bit better of an indicator of performanace?

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    6. Re:sounds like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you're trying to do floating point or not. :) Honestly though, it's almost certainly a better measurement than MHz. Can't wait for Sun to start cranking out those asynchronous processors. Then the industry will *have* to find a better yardstick.

  14. Sounds crispy by TheCrunch · · Score: 1

    Does this mean it will run cooler?

    --
    My life is one big siesta in which I'm dreaming I wished my life was one big siesta.
    1. Re:Sounds crispy by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

      Only in outer space...

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Sounds crispy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it'll be cooler. You'll have to have a refrigerator compressor built into your case, but the chip will be cool...

  15. Re:alright .. i'll say it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, someone else got to it first. Jackhole.

  16. And Linux has 6 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to prepare its excuses as to why it hasn't implemented all the business-critical features of that Microsoft OS.

    1. Re:And Linux has 6 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw. Why would anybody need a processor that fast to run a lame Time Sharing operating system, unless they were going to hook up a whole college campus to one CPU?

      Let's face it, Unix is obsolete. Has been for over a decade, but it's served as a stable base for something it really wasn't ever intended for.

  17. To put this into perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming a large cost per bit (6 transistors for the latch), there's a budget of ~1.667E8 bits with this design, or about ~2.08334E7 bytes. That's a very, very large budget. (Like 10 times the normal.)

    Cache designers can create tight L1s (for 1 cycle lookups) and L2s that are the size of texas (giving 4 9's for a hit ratio).

    Knowing how intel works, they'll likely not embrace RISC technologies and just make really small overall chips, and instead use VLIW, lots and lots of prediction and specuation. (This pushes the responsibility for explicit parallization onto the compiler writers.)

    It would interesting to see how the BBUL can be applied to low power/embedded systems. With the higher speed and lower power use, this fab technique could make for even faster, smaller RISC chips for handhelds, notebooks, etc.

  18. Re:alright .. i'll say it first... by jeffy124 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    alright, so i was the first non-AC to say it

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  19. Own power supply by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

    With that many transistors running at X GHz, will Intel be providing a fusion plant to run this thing? With some small duct works, you could even use it to heat your house!

    Seriously, though, who knows what other kind of breakthroughs are going to be made that may obsolete this? There are advances being made in optical and even quantum computing all the time. Someone is even working on a biological hard drive using DNA strands!

    My 1/50 $ (US)

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Own power supply by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      youwon't need a seperate power supply to run it, infact, the less metel, the less voltage needed, which means less power......but it may need more amps which means that if the amps needed to run it are high enough to off set the voltage saving, it may need more power to run.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Own power supply by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe just a way of converting the heat back into power for, say the tubine that cools it, or even recylce the power by sticking thermlecouples all over the heatsink and pluging it back into the power supply.
      Doing this might also prevent the otherwise inevitable brownouts caused by more than one person on your block running the Px 20 GHz Proc. (or just blowing circuit breakers by running a vacuum in the house).

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  20. Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by kzanol · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A Cool Billion

    If only it were so - but looking back on the development later new cpu generations I'd bet it's going to be a HOT billion...

    requirements for cooling of new cpus are becoming ever more demanding, just the cpu can burn in excess of 50W in existing cpus.

    So, for my own requirements I'm more interested in getting an (energy) efficient system that can run with as few fans and noise as possible - it's practically impossible nowerdays to get a box where CPU power is NOT sufficient for even the most demanding tasks. The downside is that most modern boxes seem to be best suited for running flight simulators - at least they sound like jet engines.

    Also if you're working in an office with a lot of computers, the heat output of computers and monitors can be VERY noticyble, esp. in summer. (No, there's no aircondition in my office).

    Hopefully the new technology will not only be used to reate overpowerd energy hogs but also find its way into (mobile?) processors - same cpu core as existing cpu, but smaller layout, lower core voltage and correspondlingly much cooler/more silent.

    --
    you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect
    1. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by FrostyWheaton · · Score: 1

      The same technology that makes chips faster also makes them run cooler. The only reason the latest T-bird needs that massive heatsink is because it's performance is pushed to the limit, and that takes a lot of juice. Back the clock on it down to ~400Mhz, and your heat output would be significantly lower than a PII running at the same clock speed.

      These new processors require less power than older processors do when doing the same amount of work. however, the performance ceiling for the newer procs is much, much higher.

      --
      Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
    2. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be nice to do 3d on the CPU rather than having to get ridiculously expensive graphics cards,with their own stupid driver bugs and so on.

    3. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by pyrrhos · · Score: 1

      Actually, it will be a chlenge to do something with all these transistors. The problem is that as the number of transistors grows, the number of pins to the outside world can only grow by sqrt(#of transistors). So you can do more inside but you you have not enough I/O. That is the current problem in computer architecture. An issue of IEEE computer was dedicated to that. You need special access to see the articles at IEEE but you could do a google search with the title and the paper might pop up.

    4. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • just the cpu can burn in excess of 50W in existing cpus

      An Athlon needs 76W and runs at up to 95 degrees C die temperature. Ouchie!

      Funnily enough, in some areas, it's illegal to put an incandescent lightbulb of that power in a confined area, e.g. the closet under the stairs where I run my (pleasantly warm) P133 firewall. I don't know of any such restrictions for computers.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by tsa · · Score: 1

      In a few years it takes more energy to calculate what happens to a new type of car when it crashes (using a mathematical model in a computer) than building a car and actually crashing it...

      --

      -- Cheers!

    6. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by am+2k · · Score: 1
      The downside is that most modern boxes seem to be best suited for running flight simulators - at least they sound like jet engines.

      You just wrote my new mail sig - thanks! :-)

    7. Re:Do we actually NEED this much CPU power? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      "An Athlon [amd.com] needs 76W and runs at up to 95 degrees C die temperature. Ouchie!

      Funnily enough, in some areas, it's illegal to put an incandescent lightbulb of that power in a confined area, e.g. the closet under the stairs where I run my (pleasantly warm) P133 firewall. I don't know of any such restrictions for computers.


      it seems odd, that such fire ordinances are put in place so that those without the time or intelligence to think about such saftey hazards have a house at the end of the day....you know of such ordinances, yet blatantly violate them anyways :)

      as a counterpoint, exposed, bare lightbulbs are usually directly, or nearly directly connected to a flamable surface (celing, wall), while on the other hand, computer processors are for the most part sealed in a fire retardant case (the neXt cube burning article comes to mind, despite the fact that it's magnesium), and there's not much that's flammable inside the case. i'm sure the condenser in my refridgerator falls into the same catergory.

      the apartment explosion scene in fight club comes to mind randomly

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  21. Pocket cray by smaughster · · Score: 4, Funny

    A cray in your pocket? It would better have some good cooling then, or you'd get some nice pick up lines.

    Him: Hey, baby, you make me feel *hot*.
    Her: Just take that cray out of your pants, geek boy.

    --
    I intend to live forever, so far so good.
  22. Only six years? Just like Merced/Itanium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, wasn't the Merced, aka Itanium, only supposed to take around 2 years?

    Anyone know how I calculate my age in Intel years?

  23. Are we going to waste this speed? by Mattygfunk · · Score: 1
    Ok 20 gigahertz sounds like (well is) a lot of speed, but I refuse to believe that this won't just be wasted in the end by bloated code.

    I remember thinking when I owned a 486 that these new Pentium processors were going to have my box starting up in under 5 seconds and running my chosen apps soon after. WRONG. New and "essential" features combined with bloated code meant that just wasn't going to happen. None of the systems I use will boot in under 20 seconds.

    OK someone could run early 90's software on todays machines but just don't expect your files to work on anybody elses software (without tweaking anyway).

    I could be wrong but I think history says I won't be.

  24. Owell by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    This just killed my high from ordering a 1.4Gig Athlon with a gig of RAM :-( I was hoping to be a stud at least for a day...

    1. Re:Owell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus you geeks are fucking twats. You think owning a computer will make you a stud? Dick - maybe your boyfriend will like it, you little fucking bitch-whore.

    2. Re:Owell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... what are you doing on Slashdot you dork? Just remember that at the end of the day, it's the geeks of this world that hold your life in the palms of their hands. Think about that for a little while before you make an ass out of yourself by insulting geeks on Slashdot of all places.

  25. As it stacks up to Moore's Law by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

    Why would any CPU manufacturer attempt to predict processor design & clock speed six years into the future? It will be 2007 before this statement can be tested for validity at which point processor design could have changed drastically. Perhaps I should phone Cleo and ask her what the bus speed of my motherboard will be in 2010?

    Well...let's take a look at this as it compares to Moore's Law, which says, essentially, that the top speed of microprocessors will double every 18 months.

    6 years = 6 * 12 = 72 months

    72 months/18 months = 4x doubling

    Therefore, CPUs should be 2^4 = 16 times faster in 6 years. This means you'd see an Intel chip running at 32GHz, and an AMD chip running at 24.5GHz (but called the "Athlon 30K", of course, and benching faster than the Intel chip AND providing enough heat to warm a small city)

    Sounds like these predictions are a little lower than we'd like to see...

    --
    "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    1. Re:As it stacks up to Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it's every 18-24 months, so this isn't necessarily bad. BTW, Moore's law deals with transistors not speed. don't know what the current transistor counts are though

    2. Re:As it stacks up to Moore's Law by NevDull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Moore's law isn't about clock speeds, it's about the number of transistors.

      42million x 16 (four doublings) = 672 million.

      They're planning on slightly outpacing Moore's law, not lagging behind it.

    3. Re:As it stacks up to Moore's Law by megalomang · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well...let's take a look at this as it compares to Moore's Law, which says, essentially, that the top speed of microprocessors will double every 18 months.

      Actually, what Moore's Law essentially says is that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months. The speed somewhat follows, but we have seen that simple scaling of transistor size is not sufficient to increase the speed linearly.

      Take AMD for example. AMD stays with basically the same microarchitecture as when they first crossed the 1 GHz boundary, over 18 months ago. What are they at, 1400 MHz? That's a 40% increase in the past ~18 mos. Hmm...

      Then you look at Intel. Intel practically abandoned the P3 to work on the P4, knowing the P3 was a dead end due to critical paths when scaling up the speed. The reason being that there are some parts of the microarchitecture that simply don't scale linearly with the rest of the process, primarily the memory system. Intel realized that the GHz race will guarantee market share, and has effectively succeeded in maintaining "Moore's Law" in the speed realm by scaling from 1GHz to 2Ghz in the same 18 mos. Sure, but it requires a reimplementation to do it.

      If you scale these rates over 6 years, Intel has, yes the 2^4=16x increase you are predicting. AMD on the other hand has but a 1.4^4=3.8x improvement over the next 6 years. End result, Intel would have the 32GHz machine, and AMD would have the 1.4GHz*3.8 = 5.32 GHz Athlon that they call the Athlon 30K which actually performs as well as a 7 GHz P4, (yet still heats the small city.)

      This really sounds bad for AMD, not to mention their incredibly-shrinking market share.

    4. Re:As it stacks up to Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      You're slipping, slashbots. I had to scroll waaay down on the page to find this irrelevant mention of AMD.

      Get going, AMD fanboys.... you know what you're to do...

  26. Great! by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we will have a 20GHz processor which will tell us that 4+4 is 7.9999999999 approximately :-D

  27. Pocket Cray.. by ldopa1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, it would be a Pocket SGI, wouldn't it? Palm OS with 1024 bit math! I can just imagine the sales pitch:

    "How many times have you been sitting on the bus, in need of some quick supercomputing? You're 20 minutes from the office and you just need to solve Planck's Theorem RIGHT NOW. That's why you need the Palm 2.5e+12!"

    --
    The Dopester
    "Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
  28. Ground-breaking, revolutionary news! by mcrbids · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Intel corp. (TM) announced the development of further incremental developments in their processor technology allowing them to adhere to the radical expectations of Moore's law.

    "I feel this is truly a breakthrough.", indicated Ima Prophead, Sr. Product development chairperson. "For years, we've adhered to Moore's law, but now we'll still be able to!".

    In unrelated news, Microsoft Corporation has introduced a new initiative designed to make full use of these 20 Ghz processors, .BLOAT.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Ground-breaking, revolutionary news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In further news, the Mozilla team was reported to be "excited".

  29. Intel's challenge for current & future IC pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to commend Intel for trying to tackle a problem that is daunting at best. But there are enough problems with existing IC packages that need to be taken care of between now and then. These include:

    1. High-speed signal isolation - two wires switching at enormous speeds like 10GHz are going to have effects on other signals in the package. There's enough trouble with this on high-speed multi-gigabit-per-second interfaces and even Rambus' crap TODAY. With signals packed in so close, how are they going to manage this tomorrow when the current memory bus is already at 3.2Gb/s? At 10GHz+, how hungry will the processor be for memory bandwidth? It's a fight between lower-speed highly-parallel signaling for density and higher-speed low-density serial signaling for signal integrity. A smaller package isn't going to help this. A larger package, even with fewer layers, will only aggravate signal coupling.

    2. Power delivery and consumption - on some packages, up to 30% of the total connections are for I/O and core power delivery. Making these smaller as Intel proposes will not help matter, considering that switching at 10GHz is going to make power consumption skyrocket. How do they expect to get the power to the chip? People have enough problems today trying to bump their processor voltages up when they attempt to overclock. This is only going to get exponentially more difficult.

    3. Die attach and reliability - I know they want to have solderless connections to the package. This is good - currently alpha particles from solder will occasionally cause false switching in memory elements. But with lots of heat cycles from power cycling up and down and questionable assembly yields that are usually tolerant to less than 0.5% from raw die to package. We take for granted the fact that the die will stay attached to the package today. How they will get the reliability to that point is beyond me, even if they've made a "major" stride. How do they account for field failures or age-related failures in a test lab?

    4. Substrate material - the package material itself is critical to thermal matching on the board as well as to signal integrity inside the package. At the speeds they propose will the current substrates be sufficient for reducing signal coupling? As usual, material science is again lagging behind the rest, and we need far more research into exotic materials to be able to get fast packages going.

    So, to me I think there's going to have to be larger packages with advanced cooling. I'm not going to get too excited. I certainly don't think that Intel will be able to take this course alone. What I forsee happening is to have new committees set up specifically for packaging as there are for IC process technology today. It's too capital and research intensive to be able to get away from having to use committees.

  30. here's an experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    go back to 1995. ask Intel when Merced(now Itanium) would be out. now ask them how fast it would be in late 2001. now understand that what they say about 6 years in the future isn't worth a flying fuck

    1. Re:here's an experiment by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      At Intel, the trend seems to be for new-generation processors to be released 2-3 years later than predicted, while still benefiting from Moore's Law in the meantime.

      For example, Merced was originally projected for release in 1998, at clock speeds around 300 MHz. (Source: Usenet postings from early 1995.)

      My guess is that it will be 2010 before we see the gigatransistor chip this article is talking about, and that it will be at least somewhat faster than 20 GHz when it does appear.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
  31. Re:At what cost? Speculation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooooh. Get ready for the pre-predictive alternative branch speculation algorithm inside the CPU! Just what every web browser needs. ;)

  32. Transistor Count by Red+Aardvark+House · · Score: 1

    According to the article:

    Currently, Intel's Pentium 4 microprocessor -- the primary computing engine of personal computers and servers -- has about 42 million transistors and runs at two gigahertz.

    --

    I like fire ants. They are very spicy!

  33. With a billion + Transistors ,what will be the heat resistances and what sort of cooling will be required?Can anyone throw a few numbers. I suppose we shall move back to boiling N2 of cray fame...

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  34. Bottlenecks by FrostyWheaton · · Score: 1

    I think it is great that processor technology is dontinuing to evolve and break through many technical limitations in the past few years. However my larger concern is with the I/O bottlenecks that are becoming more and more of a problem now that chips are running faster and faster. When is the next great breakthough in RAM technology going to come?

    Until we can start pumping 100+Gb/s to the processor, most of the power is wasted while it waits to fetch memory.

    --
    Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
  35. Huh? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Removing the balls of solder between the chip's packaging and the microprocessor core"...

    Well, sure, that'd give you lots more room for transistors... It'd also give you a lot more room for defects to creep in. This is functionally no different from expanding the die size to the point where the CPU size is the same. While it might be less expensive than cutting fewer chips per wafer, it does nothing to increase the reliability of the process.

    I think this is more of a pricing advance, and you'll see this lowering the cost of existing processor layouts, since you can decrease the die size without affecting the CPU design. But CPU size increases will still result in lower yield.

    1. Re:Huh? by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kind of. If one of your spacing limitations is due to I/O, and the limitation on the I/O is due to the necessity of placing huge (relatively) gobs of solder between the output lines and the package pins, then removing the solder may allow you to space I/O lines closer together, giving you more die space for logic.

      But, yes, merely removing the solder doesn't change anything as far as the photolithography, deposition, or etching steps are concerned, and photo will still be one of the primary limitations in feature size (which then dictates just how many transisters you can pack into a square centimeter).

      Intel is merely expecting some reduced power consumption (and thus heat production), and that this is "step in our march toward making processors with 1 billion transistors" not that this will itself allow such.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really a question of getting more room for transistors since they can do that now - I don't think many defects show up in the bonding pads. The real win is that the inductance of the I/O lines is decreased, allowing faster signalling and lower power consumption.

      Others have talked about the memory interface becoming more and more important a bottleneck but there are technologies coming that will reduce this threat... For instance, chip multithreading and simultaneous multi-threading will help hide dealays for memory fetches. Also, how many of those 20 billion transistors are going to be tied up in cache. Likely quite a few. Instead of having (mainstream) cpus with 512 kb of L2, we could see 4 mb of L2 on consumer chips. This is even more likely now that better cache designs are coming down the pipe.

  36. Pentium 5 by PMan88 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine.

    Just today, Intel announced the release of the Pentium 5 processor. The new processor runs at 50 Ghz. It features a 300-stage pipeline. It will take 2 minutes for each instruction to complete on average. But to optomize, programmers can send 1800 intructions at a time, as long as they have no dependence on each other at all.

    1. Re:Pentium 5 by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      ...proccessor still having trouble with running Quake 3 in 1600x1200 resolution...

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    2. Re:Pentium 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but that's actually not a processor problem. That's on nVidia and ATI's end, and even there the bottleneck is in the memory performance on the video card. Current video processors themselves are capable of a lot more than current memory technology allows them to achieve.

  37. I'm waiting till they hit at least 10Ghz by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

    Before I upgrade my new laptop. Wow, just imagine how fast the games will be at that speed. It'll damn sure make for some fun LAN parties. No more having to worry about lugging a desktop around either! Hopefully by that time Gig fiber to the house won't be just a dream anymore either!

    1. Re:I'm waiting till they hit at least 10Ghz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gigabit *copper* is a reality today. search for gigabit on pricewatch. $40-$50 for gigabit copper nics that use cat5e.

    2. Re:I'm waiting till they hit at least 10Ghz by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

      I know Gig is available. I meant that Gig service to my house or apartment would be the norm, Vs. the current reality of paying over inflated prices for semi fast DSL speeds.

  38. Microsoft by JohnHegarty · · Score: 0

    I am sure Windows 2006 will require at least 20GHZ and 256GB of ram.

    The requiments for software allways seem to expand to find the systems. If the same optimizion was down on windows software that was done on Z80 , then we would need systems this fast.

  39. Exact opposite should and will happen by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    With general purpose processors becoming blindingly fast, there will be even less need for ASICs - over time, what can't be solved with repackaged commodoty circuitry can simply be farmed off to the CPU or done in software.

    This will be key in driving down the cost of computing, as custom logic will always be more expensive than commodity logic.

    While I would expect these developments to also obviously drive down the cost of developing custom logic, volume production will always make commodity logic more cost effective.

  40. Where's the important stuff... by Zen+Heretic · · Score: 1

    a billion somethings, 20 giga whatevers... Someday... What does this new package do NOW? How much faster will it move heat off the die? How much did they drop the capitance getting off to the fiberglass? Is there any REAL technical advantage or is this just another attempt to shake AMD off their tail by requiring more proprietary hardware? Just wondering. ZH

  41. 20ghz worth of speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and I still can't win in Solitaire!

  42. user interfaces based on speech and video by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Eventually the masses will interact with computers by speech and video. Text and keybords will be secondary. Current computers cant quite do this yet, but how much is software versus hardware?

  43. For Immediate Release by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intel today announced its new 1024-bit (1 kilobit) microprocessor architecture technology. Named the Shiitakeum, Intel's new processor core boasts powerful new technologies which will enable content providers to deliver compelling enterprise solutions.

    The Shiitakeum incorporates the following new features:

    * SingleAtom technology squeezes one thousand transistors into a single atom.

    * The processing pipeline has been broken down into 299,792,458 discreet steps, enabling Intel to remove the internal clock altogether and run the processor at the speed of light. One "cycle" represents the absolute cosmic measure unit of time, and all operations occur in one cycle. (Compete with that, AMD! Bwahaahahahaha!!)

    * 24,856 new instructions have been added since the previous model, bringing the new total to over 72 trillion instructions. The entire UNIX operating system can be programmed in one instruction!

    * RAM has been depreciated. 4 terabytes of internal general-use registers allow software to make more efficient data access, providing a more compelling Internet experience.

    * Intel (r) AnswerNow (tm) Technology bends the space-time continuum, allowing the results of branch instructions and mathematical operations to be used before they are computed. The computations take place during idle cycles at some future time.

    * Intel (r) CodeSpirit (tm) Technology processes machine code by its spirit, rather than its letter, completely eliminating software bugs and preventing malicious code, such as a virus, from executing.

    * Intel (r) AlienCode (tm) Technology, based on CodeSpirit, allows users to execute programs written for any other processor, without previous knowledge of that processor's instruction set. The technology examines and "decyphers" the instructions and data in much the same way that scientists decypher written languages used by past civilizations. Via AnswerNow and CodeSpirit technologies, programs written for other processors actually run faster and better on Intel platforms than on their native processor. As a side effect, the processor now directly executes programs and scripts written in Java or any P-code or text-based language. In fact, even instructions spelled out in English are understood and executed by the processor.

    * Intel (r) BrainWaves (tm) Technology allows the processor to read and write information in the user's mind. The processor is given away for free, and based on the user's thoughts, targetted advertisements are inserted directly into the user's mind. The process is painless, and simply feels like a song stuck in your head. A nominal (i.e., expensive) fee can be paid daily to eliminate the advertisements.

    The Intel Shiitakeum Processor. Mushrooms Inside.

    1. Re:For Immediate Release by Surak · · Score: 2

      The 19861541313544111 BTU cryogenic freezer necessary to keep this chip cool is, of course, not included.

      The Intel Shiitakeum Processor. Mushrooms Inside.

  44. IBM Promises 100ghz within a year or two by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Two bad IBM has Promised 100ghz within a year or two. Seriously.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  45. a cruel billyun (FraUDuleNT LieSenses) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We'll never promise you anything, based on some speculative ?pr? bs at ScaredCity?tm?.

    No joke though, we will be giving away this currently useful set of URLs, including a year's free hosting, to someone who can follow simple directions, & is not aFraUD.

    fud is dead? Viva La Revolucione

  46. We already do, and have for years by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Your computer spends most of its time just waiting for you to do something. If you have purchased a PC in the last six months (Athlon or P4) you certainly have far more CPU capacity than your I/O merits.

    As for "code bloat" - deal with it, you are getting something bacl. Look at the memeory consumption for KDE2 vs. blackbox. sure, you are using ten times the memory, but in return you are getting a great deal of functionality. Your computer is there to be used, not preserved. Why not fill up that RAM? Why not saturate that CPU?

    1. Re:We already do, and have for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Blackbox 0wnz3d j00! :)

      In all seriousness, I think that's the kind of bloat he's referring to. Blackbox is all about simplicity. That's why people love it.

      KDE is not really my prime example of bloat, though. Look at Microsoft (ah yes, our dear friends at Microsoft). Should you really need a 2 Ghz Pentium 4 to run Word? Hell no! Do you need a 2 Ghz Pentium 4 to run Word? Well, maybe not now, but probably in another couple of versions. Word's basic feature set (and Windows' for that matter) has not changed appreciably in at least the past 6 years. Sure there's been a few little bells and whistles tacked on (Clippy anyone?) but for the most part it's the same old thing. Yet minimum system requirements continue to creep up with no appreciable gain. I've always found this particularly interesting with regards to Microsoft - considering their close ties to Intel and all.

      For games it's a totally different issue. Hell yes, I need my Athlon to play Quake 3! Are you nuts?!?

    2. Re:We already do, and have for years by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 1

      It's too bad there isn't such a thing as a "capacitor" for CPU cycles. It would be neat to store up unused cycles and blow them all at once on a Photoshop filter.

      --
      Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
  47. More info on this - links & pictures by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intel has more info on this (both pdf's):

    This backgrounder (4 pages, 17kb) has a basic diagram showing the change.
    This briefing (18 pages, 2466kb) is a presentation, but actually has some nice detail. It has some photographs of the devices, better diagrams, and a picture of a naked man in the shower (really!).

    I'll summerize:
    PGA packaging (as used in many big processors) is basically a ceramic or fiberglass carrier board with pins on one side, wires in the middle (like a small PC board), and some method to directly attach to the chip. The chip is usually connected to the board with small solder balls, like BGAs, but on a smaller scale. The balls provide some flexibility and loose tolerances, but since they are bigger than the wires they connect they require a fairly large pad on the chip. This technology is a way eliminate these balls, allowing for smaller pads, freeing up more area on the die.

    But you should check out the pictures -- they describe it better than I do.

    1. Re:More info on this - links & pictures by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

      Anandtech has an overview of this technology here.

  48. Time to learn... by Laser+Lou · · Score: 0

    A microprocessor with 1 billion transistors? The future must look good for Verilog/VHDL engineers.

    --
    No data, no cry
  49. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn thats fast.

    http://bunkscene.keenspace.com
    Home of Just Plain Dumb (online comic)

  50. Just what we need, more GHz! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
    IIRC Moore's law refers to the number of transistors on a chip. And we already know that processing power does not exactly increase with GHz. Any figures on the real speed of that beast?

    On the other hand, I'm more interested in reducing power consumption. My laptop hogs at most 30W, modern desktops may use ten times that. I'm sick of hearing of California's power outages and the like, when the technology for power saving is already there.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  51. Pricing by steveargonman · · Score: 1

    Who cares! As expensive as Intel is over AMD now, that chip will probably be around the cost of a new car or something..

  52. Castrating bastards.... by tcc · · Score: 2, Funny

    >The advance here is removing the balls of solder between the chip's packaging and the microprocessor core

    Was I the only one who twitched when reading this?

    oh man... I am a geek..... help!! :)

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
  53. Anything that shaves even a few minutes off my day by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I really feel I need 20 GHz. Anything that shaves even a few minutes off my day is very welcome. Considering just the work I do now, a 20 GHz processor might make my day 10% shorter.

    If I had that speed I would do a lot of video processing. I also hope there would be good voice recognition. Long waits for compiling would disappear.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  54. Re:Intel's challenge for current & future IC p by mach-5 · · Score: 2

    This is a *GREAT* comment. Please mod this up, it is worth it even though it was posted AC. It's a lot better than the standard, "Hey, look how fast I can run Diablo II now!" comments.

    Anyway, by committees do you mean standards organizations similar to IEEE groups? I completely agree with that point, it would really help to get the research moving along. Unfortunately, I think many of the IC manufacturers are too worried about squeezing every last cent out of their current technologies before they put the newer technologies on the market. Really, there is no rush to market new technologies as long as they are still making money, and people are happy with the current products. That is what often cause the technology to stay behind closed doors for longer. A standards committee could help get things to market more quickly???

  55. Quetions and a potential problem by CodeShark · · Score: 1
    Looking at the article, I noticed a couple things worth follow up questions/thoughts:
    1). Because the distance the data must travel is shorter, the new packaging helps boost the overall speed and performance of the chip., and

    2):Intel calls the new packaging technology, for which it has already secured a number of patents, bumpless build-up layer, or BBUL, packaging.

    My questions are mainly related to the first item, as follows:
    1. Has the signal distance reduction (less layers) been cut sufficiently to allow the 10X increase in speed?
    2. Is the density of transistors currently limited by the layers, and finally
    3. (sort of a cross betweern the first two questions) Assuming that the 10X increase is possible, doesn't it require that the same kind of technology be used for all of the remaining high speed chips?
    The observation is related to the second item. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the "bumpless" technology is the absolute best state of the art for a while. Will the fact that Intel has patented the technology give them a de-facto monopoly on ultra high speed/high performance chips, and if so, is this really good news or not?
    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  56. Vapor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's safe vapor from a liability standpoint. 6 years is sooooooo far away.

    This is merely puff to try bolstering Intel's pathetic performance on Wall St.

  57. Will this 20Ghz processor... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    need a 500Mhz Athlon to run the cooling system?

    That, my friends would be the ultimate irony.

    (because you know darn well Intel'l lowest end proc available will be the 19.3333 celeron IV).

    Moose.

    (top 2 reasons to mod me up:
    2) I'm funny, insightful and informative damnit
    1) /.'s database will eventually lose every one of my +3 or higher posts, sooner or later when there is database cor*&^%@

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  58. does it matter? by archen · · Score: 1

    I almost dread computers going that fast. Just another excuse to make bloated code. But that might not be a bad thing. Mozilla might even be considered "lean and mean". Seriously though, this isn't addressing the other computer problems. Oh, like say the BUS SPEED. RAM isn't really making leaps and bounds compaired to speed either. And if hard drives only manage to improve at the rate they have been, virtual memory will be a gigantic disaster in terms of performance loss.

    The other good news is that AMD processors will keep your computer clean as they will combust small particles that enter your computer case. Although hardware people will be very displeased at not being able to look directly at the CPU unless the computer has been shut off for 15 minutes to allow for cooling.

    1. Re:does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like virtual memory isn't a performance disaster anyway? Granted, Windows' pathetic memory management exacerbates the problem, but the fact remains that a physical hard disk simply cannot compete (in terms of speed) with a RAM transistor.

  59. Re:Anything that shaves even a few minutes off my by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
    • Long waits for compiling would disappear.

    Maybe it's a perception thing, but I feel like my compile times stay constant no matter how much I upgrade my machine. Perhaps it's memory bandwidth or hard drive access, or perhaps it just that I've moved from ASM to C to C++ to (god help me) C#...

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  60. Why is this so amazing? by frantzdb · · Score: 2
    The P4 came out in 2000 and has 42,000,000 transistors. Six years from now is seven years from 2000. 7 years/18 months = 4.667 doubling cycles according to Moore's law. 42e6 * 2^4.667 = 1.07e9---just over a billion.


    While this will be cool, it's not amazing. (Neither is the fact that that computer will come with about 10GB of RAM.)

    --Ben

    1. Re:Why is this so amazing? by abelsson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You seem to think that moores law is somehow a fixed law of nature - if we just sit around doing nothing processor speed will still double every 18th month. Obviously this isn't true - it takes a lot of research to keep the speed doubling. This is one such thing. Hopefully there'll be more.


      -henrik

  61. Speed of light by mtrope · · Score: 1

    At clock speeds approaching 20 GHz, it seems there would be not only manufacturing problems to overcome, but physics problems as well.
    Some quick math:

    20 Gigahertz = 20*10^9 Hz (1/seconds)

    For time per cycle, 1/(20*10^12) = 5*10^-11 seconds per cycle

    Speed of light = 3*10^8 meters/sec

    In 1 cycle, light will travel (3*10^8) * (5*10^11) = 0.015 meters = 1.5 centimeters per cycle.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this roughly approaching the size of the die? I know Intel's a big company, but I think someone might get a little upset if they try and break the laws of physics.

    1. Re:Speed of light by mtrope · · Score: 1

      Whoops, couple of typos - 1(20*10^9) in second line, (5*10^-11) in the last. Apologies in advance.

    2. Re:Speed of light by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but theres no reason for a signal to travel the entire length of the CPU just as when you send a packet of data from NY to LA you don't have to wait until it would reach Amsterdam -- incase you need to send something that way someday.

      --
      Rod Taylor
  62. absolutely not by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1
    >Do we actually NEED this much CPU power?


    No. In fact, 640k aught to be enough for anyone!

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  63. 127 post and not one "imagine a beowolf cluster .. by paulydavis · · Score: 1

    I guess the moderation system works after all.

  64. I'd like to dedicate this song by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    "When the lights go down in the city" to all the people in California/Silicon valley.

    (This is not a troll, if you don't get it that says more about you than it does me. It's meant to be funny...if it does not amuse you, then don't mod it up or mod it down.
    "I was raised to belive there was *some* good in everyboday" Pacha in 'The Emp. New Groove'.
    Unfortunately, recent /. moderators have proven me wrong...metamoderation rules, obvious trolls = agree, otherwise don't moderate or *disagree*)

    Moose

    PS. IF you've read the far, don't you agree it's sad when you have to put disclaimers up just trying to make a __JOKE__?
    When moderators attack, tonite at 8pm.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  65. Thats not surprising at all... by hhe_hee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess that anyone that's heard of Moore's law doesn't be surprised by this. In 1971 Moore published his Law that describes the performance increase for semiconductors and was estimated as an 18 month doubling. You can see a fine graph about this here.

    And a fast calculation (based on a 2GHz intel P4 :):
    6 years = 72 months
    72/18=4
    and 2^4=16GHz
    And 2.1 GHz will give 19.4GHz, which I think they will release before new year or so...

    It is possible that the 18 months would be slightly different, like 20 months, but clearly this trend has continued with little change. But remember that computer performance is strongly influenced by the semiconductor trend but need not be exactly identical.

    --
    2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
    1. Re:Thats not surprising at all... by Ghengis · · Score: 1

      There's only one foreseeable problem with Moore's Law.... Reaching the theoretical limits of the architecture. While this trend does seem to be continuing, at some point technology used in the architecture or the architecture itself will have to be changed as. The technologies used in the current computer architecture are reaching their theoretical limits, so to continue the trend proposed by Moore's Law, some great advancements will have to be made. This is why some of these stories about 20Ghz are so amazing, or promising at least.

      --

      "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  66. Hot Noise by fm6 · · Score: 2
    The downside is that most modern boxes seem to be best suited for running flight simulators - at least they sound like jet engines.
    I absolutely agree with you on two basic points:
    • raw processing power is way oversold
    • machines are too damn noisy
    I wonder, though if the CPU is the main culprit. A small, 50 watt gizmo doesn't generate that much heat. It's true that CPUs often have heat dissipation problems, but only because so much heat is generated in such a small space.

    On the other hand, we still use the basic IBM layout for PCs, where a huge transformer is mounted inside the box. That so-noisy fan is there primarily to cool the transformer. Even with hotter and hotter CPUs, the cooling needs of the rest of the computer have actually decreased over the years, because systems use fewer and fewer chips.

    This design was obsolete two decades ago, when it was first introduced. Manufacturers at that time were moving to external power supplies, which can dissipate heat through radiation. Unfortunately, any computer not profoundly compatible with IBM's original quick-and-dirty design is now commercially nonviable.

    1. Re:Hot Noise by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      Computers require something on the order of 200-400 Watts of power... that is a pretty hefty power load to put on an external transformer. Most notebook transformers only provide 100-150W, and they get VERY hot... I would be afraid of leaving a 400W external transformer unattended, lest it become a fire hazard.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    2. Re:Hot Noise by fm6 · · Score: 2
      It doesn't have to be all one big transformer. Back in the 80s, I worked for Convergent Technologies, which made a super-proprietary system called the NGen. The basic power supply was modular. Each module was (if memory serves) about twice the size of a modern laptop PS. Though I think a lot of the size was due to passive heat dissipation.

      Now obviously such a power supply could handle only the most basic configuration. No problem. You figured out the power requirements of the system (every peripheral or plugin had an power number to simply this) and connected the necessary number of power supplies.

      And, as kzanol pointed out at the beginning of this thread, most systems are overpowered. I have to question how many users need enough computing power to use the full capacity of 400-watt power supplies!

      Oh, and I just felt up my Thinkpad 770 power supply. A moderately wimpy computer, but sufficient for most tasks. And the PS is just warm enough to feel.

    3. Re:Hot Noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to question how many users need enough computing power to use the full capacity of 400-watt power supplies!


      I do! I do! :)
  67. nekid man by silphium_laciniatum · · Score: 1

    more like half naked man. I followed that link for no reason!

    --

    "No one will smell that."

    1. Re:nekid man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I misled you a bit. On that page (#14) there are three naked men peeing in the shower, and one very happy guy (who is all naked, but they cropped it out below the waist)

  68. No More than Moore by Muggs+McGinnis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is right on track with Moore's Law.

    Intel Promises a Cool Billion (Transistors)

    "SANTA CLARA, California (Reuters) - Intel Corp., the world's largest chipmaker,
    said Monday it's developed new semiconductor packaging technology that will
    allow for microprocessors boasting 1 billion transistors and running at 20
    gigahertz in the next six years.

    "Currently, Intel's Pentium 4 microprocessor -- the primary computing engine of
    personal computers and servers -- has about 42 million transistors and runs at
    two gigahertz."

    Moore's Law:

    Moore predicted that the number of transistors per integrated circuit would
    double every 18 months.

  69. Re:Intel's challenge for current & future IC p by salmi · · Score: 1

    Standards are all fine and good -- but the design by comittee nature hinders time to market. Anyone have examples of standards that were finished before a competing non-standard was on the market?

  70. Just like they promised P4's with big caches? by cnelzie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I recall correctly the original specs for the P4 stated a much larger cache and higher FPU. Then Intel found out that they would have to sell them for some insane price, like 1200 bucks, to make any kind of profit.

    So, what did they do?

    They clipped the FPU down to practically nothing, cut down the cache. Broke the JIT functionality and made the chip only able to really churn out specially optimized C code with any kind of speed.

    Sorry, but MANY companies still use and program in COBOL, FORTRAN and PASCAL. Before any of you claim those are "dead" languages, remember that these languages run programs that have been in use on mainframes, companies spent millions/billions on, for more than 20 years. COBOL recently had some WWW extensions started or discussed a year or two ago as well.

    I honestly have to question Intel's future processor roadmaps and production products when they show off things that are really to pricey for them to mass produce. It would be awesome if Intel was able to release the P4 like the original specs were. I would have one right now. The only thing is they didn't and the chip just ramps up the megaherts, but doesn't really do all that much more.

    --
    . sig seperator
    --

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:Just like they promised P4's with big caches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? troll!

    2. Re:Just like they promised P4's with big caches? by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but MANY companies still use and program in COBOL, FORTRAN and PASCAL. Before any of you claim those are "dead" languages, remember that these languages run programs that have been in use on mainframes,

      Yes, and that's where they will stay... how many mainframes have you ever seen running on P3's???

      As for the debilitated x87 unit, Intel is actually forging forward with the SSE2 instructions that will effectively replace it and make all our lives easier. Just read Hennessy & Patterson about how the x87 was never able to achieve more than 50% of it's theoretical performance because one operand of every instruction has to be pulled from a stack... and if your next op isn't at the top of the stack you need to pop a bunch of stuff off just keep your program intact... not fun. SSE2-> good for the future (AMD thinks so too, they will have it in the hammer line).

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  71. A Cray of one's own (not necessarily pocket) by dpilot · · Score: 2

    Before wishing for a pocket Cray, according to: http://www.dg.com/about/html/cray-1.html the Cray-1 was a 160 MFlop machine.

    I'm not sure how to equate that to X86 floating point, or even what the Cray-1 clock speed was, and I realize that it was a quarter century ago. But I think that modern garden-variety PCs are in or above the Cray-1 performance realm.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:A Cray of one's own (not necessarily pocket) by sheetsda · · Score: 2

      The Athlon can do up to 4 FlOps per cycle. On a 1 GHz machine that'd be 4 GigaFlOpS or 4000 MegaFlOps. See execution pipelines section of this document.

  72. AMD retaliates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While at first frightened at the sight of Intels press release, AMD soon realized that Intel had been braking the law and succeeded in sueing them into oblivion. The Intel (r) AlienCode (tm) Technology turned out to be in violation of the so-called DMCA.

    Intel (r) AlienCode (tm) Technology, based on CodeSpirit, allows users to execute programs written for any other processor, without previous knowledge of that processor's instruction set. The technology examines and "decyphers" the instructions and data in much the same way that scientists decypher written languages used by past civilizations.

  73. Moores Law by akula1 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I hate to complain, here I go anyway. Moores law isn't a law. Its a fabrication. If I say that according to "Bills Law" the number of transistors in a CPU will grow linearly with the gross domestic product of Bulgaria you'd laugh at me. In truth, however, that's *almost* as valid as Moore's law.

    Comparing Intels predictions (as wildly optimistic as they are) to Moore's law is therefore about as productive as trying to teach a duck to sing Ave Maria in Latin

    Ok, I feel better know. I'm gonna go get a beer

    1. Re:Moores Law by sethanon · · Score: 1

      IIRC Moore's Law was originally predicting that the number of transistors would double every 18 months (2 years originally, right?)

      To repeat your calculation, replacing GHz with transistors:

      42 x 2 = 84 in 18 months, 84 x 2 = 168 in 3yrs ... = 672 million transistors in 6 yrs.

      The article is stating that Intel will have 1 billion transistors within 6 years.

      The actual performance of the chip will be dramatically influenced by how they use all those transistors. Whilst I imagine most of them would go towards on chip caches, it would still be possible for them to come up with some nifty new instructions (SSE V?) etc.

  74. Re:umm... by jeffreym · · Score: 1

    i think they're referring to this article from Sept. 4: http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-mo to04.html

    also, IBM discussed this in 1998 and estimated it would be about 5 years before it became commercially viable, which is still consistent with this report re: Motorola's process. It would also have favorable implications to ALL chip manufacturing, not just core processors. It's nothing new, theoretically, just new and revolutionary in a practical sense.

  75. Intel? Cool? That does not compute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it's just a Pentium floating point error :)

  76. Well now! by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't you love a Beowulf Cluster of these things!!

    Come on, it had to be said.

  77. Here's a URL to munch on ;) by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2089968,00. html

    This articall basically talks about that new 210 GHz transistor IBM announced back around June.

    It's a ZDnet atical, so there's not much about who IBM will licence this technology to. Odds are Power and PowerPC chips will probably take use of this within the next year or so. Sound cool.

    I'd advise a google search if you want more info ;).

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  78. Why Intel? by tangent3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why buy an Intel 20GHz CPU for $n when you can get an AMD 14GHz CPU for $(n/2) which beats the Intel 20GHz CPU in almost all benchmark tests?

    Just don't forget not to remove the heat sink.

  79. damn typos by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    damn typos. errr

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  80. re: Intel Promises.. so do IBM and Motorola... by jeffreym · · Score: 1

    I wonder... Intel is touting this breakthrough, which should affect chip design for all kinds of chips and on Sept. 4, Sun-Times reported that Motorola had firmed up the design and manufacturing processes for using Gallium Arsenide as a binding agent to greatly enhance capabilities into the 50+ ghz range. IBM discussed this process as a future breakthrough situation that would likely occur within 5 years... back in 1998, as reported on CNet.

  81. Balls of the soldier? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

    Dunno about anyone else; maybe it's the attack on the Taliban - but I read "balls of solder" as "balls of the soldier."

    Had to do a double-take on that one.

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  82. Re: Intel Promises.. so do IBM and Motorola... by jeffreym · · Score: 1
  83. 20gHz :: But will this run any faster? by ellem · · Score: 2

    #!/usr/bin/perl -w
    use strict;

    print "\n\nThe Magic Perl will entertain some queries now.\n\n";

    my $quit = 0;
    until ($quit) {

    print "What is your yes/no question for the Magic Perl? \n";
    my $ques = <STDIN>;
    chomp $ques;

    my @q_ans = (
    "Yes.",
    "No.",
    "Maybe",
    "My sources say, \"Yes.\"",
    "My sources say, \"No.\"",
    "These are not the droids you're looking for, move along.",
    "You are not ready to hear the answer for that.",
    "11.",
    "The answer you seek is within you.",
    "Certainly.",
    "No way.",
    "nowonmai...",
    "Doh!",
    "How the Hell should I know?",
    "You must learn control.",
    );

    my $rand = rand @q_ans;
    my $ans = $q_ans[$rand];

    print qq(\nYou dared to ask "$ques":\nThe Magic Perl says, "$ans"\nThe Magic Perl has spoken.\n);

    print qq(\nDo you have another question for the Magic Perl? Type "y" to ask.\n);
    my $again = <STDIN>;
    chomp ($again);
    if ($again eq 'y'){
    $quit = 0;
    } elsif ($again ne 'y'){
    print "The Magic Perl grows weary of your queries anyway! \n\n";
    $quit = 1;
    }
    }

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  84. I Nominate CNN for worst Tech Reporting by B.B.Wolf · · Score: 1

    This has got to be the worst written tech artical of the year. It was barley intelligable. I was reminded of a Nun trying to explaining sex to 6 year olds.

  85. New From Intel! by ph4tcat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Easy Bake Processors*!!

    Cook your favorite Goodies, and process your RC5/SETI packets fast! Purchase the Space heater for those cold nights in the Dorm/Batchlor-pad *Keep away from combustable material, do not touch Processor, Case, or desk. Intel coproration is not responcable for injury or death.

    --
    Anime : Drugs would be cheaper
  86. What will need it by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1

    insert 'maybe we'll have something to run WindowsXP on properly' joke here

    Seriously though, we'll need chips like this once we are doing holographic projection at home. That requires ALOT of cpu power. It's a way off, but it will happen eventually.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  87. Committee was not the right word...sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant consortium. For example, SEMI, which is the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, which is a consortium of many companies involved in semiconductor manufacture, could pool resources. It's similar in scope to tackling small-geometry photolithography with EUV or Extreme UltraViolet, versus Bell Labs' SCALPEL electron beam lithography. Considerable amounts of resources are expended, and by working together, they can prevent themselves by being all stopped or severely slowed in the future because one company doesn't have sufficient directed research to also maintain profitable operations.

  88. Old Way of Doing New Things. by tino_sup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The cool billion concept is cool, but it also points out that the processor paridigm is locked in for another 6 years.

    It is my hope that within 6 yrs there is a greater focus on the -way- the little "ones" and "zeros" are processed, not necessarily how much faster it is done based on current standards.

    --
    I am me...I think
  89. Another Intel Travesty: the i845 chipset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel has vastly hyped its 845 chipset. Believing in the marketing power of Intel, many motherboard makers have overbooked it. Now, as every geek in the world had predicted, no one wants it!

    http://digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?IR=N&C la ssID=100&datePublish=2001/10/08&pages=03&seq=17

  90. Gate's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gate's Law:

    Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.

  91. Moores Law by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    20GHz in 6 years? Sounds slow to me.

    current speeds are at 2G 2 X 2 = 4GHz in 18 months

    4 X 2 = 8GHz in 3 years. 8 X 2 = 16GHz and then 16 x 2 = 32GHz in 6 years. So why is IBM falling behind?

  92. Re:Intel's challenge for current & future IC p by esonik · · Score: 1

    Refering to your last paragraph, I think cooling will require a larger portion of the total CPU costs in future. This is already true for todays CPU compared to older ones that only required passive cooling.

    The main problems with the current cooling concept is that air has a very small heat capacity which means that you have to circulate a lot of air in order to remove a certain amount of heat, and second that only a small temperature difference T(CPU) - T(ambient) is allowed which makes cooling very inefficient. As a consequence, cooling by air will be replaced soon by other technologies that move the heat dump away from the processor (e.g. liquid cooling circuits, preferably liquids colder than room temperature). Cooling to below room temperature will be standard as this opens the possibility for even higher clock rates with only small additional hardware costs (running costs will be a lot higher of course).

    The next step will be cooling facilities integrated into the chip (think of dedicated copper lines running from problematic 'hot spots' to the cooling interface).

  93. Re:Memory Speed? Bandwidth? Disk I/O? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it time to concentrate the innovation on
    these areas? How does a xGhz CPU help speed up
    work on a 300Mb graphic?

  94. Technically... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 1
    Actually, the real issue is the length (in terms of propogation delays) of the instruction pipeline. The P4 breaks up instructions into dozens of little steps, and does them all at once. The point is that these little steps each take less time to complete, so with the same speed transistors the clockspeed can be increased.

    The problem with this idea is that the MHz goes up a lot, but the actual CPU speed may not (for instance, the P4 can do up to (roughly) 40 things at once - but if it fails branch-prediction, it can spend almost 40 clock cycles just regenerating the instruction path. Shorter pipelines are faster during heavily branched code, longer pipelines generally improve integer-math-heavy code.

    1. Re:Technically... by megalomang · · Score: 1

      Yes, we all know the theory behind a deeply-pipelined sequencer, and that if you were truly able to divide each operation into an infinite number of infinitely-small steps, then your processor could run infinitely fast.

      Of course this does not take into account changes of flow, but you are incorrect to say that shorter pipelines are faster during heavy branched code. In theory, shorter and longer pipelines perform identically with heavily-branched code. This is because the amount of time required to compute the next instruction address remains constant for a given process. So although the more deeply-pipelined machine must abort more stages due to each mispredicted branch, the faster clock speed makes it a wash.

      In actuality, longer pipelines perform far better for several reasons. The first you mentioned already is branch prediction. A correctly-predicted branch suffers no penalty and therefore the higher instruction committal rate can be maintained. And as has long been understood in the academic world, branches can be predicted with a very high rate of accuracy. Of course the rate of mispredicted branches for short and deeply-piplined machines are the same for a given prediction method.

      Then, you can analyze the vast majority of multimedia code today. It is of course the killer-app for most home users and is one of the primary driving forces for today's pc market. Multimedia code is very static. Data are processed in packets or bursts of fixed length. Modern processors provide instruction buffers that eliminate the branch penalty for loops of static loop count. It follows that deeply-pipelined processors are a natural fit for multimedia code. If you look at the latest offerings of DSPs in the industry, you will see the industry has become aware of this in the past few years.

      However creating a deeply-pipelined machine is not as simple as you let on. If it were, everyone would be doing it, and of course AMD would not need to concede the GHz race so early. Stage overhead can become cumbersome, and operations may be atomic, requiring parallel units instead of further pipelining. Memory systems must be redesigned. Control registers become very complex. Event handling and context switching even moreso.

      Finally, you missed my original point. It is not simply rearchitecting the pentium that is getting Intel to the many GHz clock rate. Intel will be relying on a much faster process with much smaller geometries to get there. This is one of the main reasons why AMD won't be able to keep up. Simply shrinking a design to a smaller process does not yield the great speeds one would think. The main reason for this is that portions of the pipeline must be rearchitected to remove the critical paths to truly take advantage of the smaller process. This requires many novel improvements in the memory architecture so that instructions can be fetched in a more pipelined manner and so L2 accesses can be minimized, since as I've mentioned before, speeds do not linearly scale with transistor size.

    2. Re:Technically... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 1
      Funny, the unity-gain frequency of a MOSFET is given by Ft=(gm/(2*pi*(1/2*W*L*Cox)). So scaling down W[idth] or L[ength] down by a certain factor would raise the maximum operational speed of a MOSFET by the same amount. Some parts, such as dynamic RAM, don't really scale this way, but static RAM (such as used on on-die caches) is composed purely of MOSFETS, not the capacitors in DRAM's.

      The main reason for the rearchitecting when the process is shrinked is generally the larger available number of transistors. A design involving 45 million electromechanical relays could take advantage of the shorter per-clock paths as easily as modern CMOS, but such a thing would be enormous. Chip yields tend to be based on wafer size moreso than complexity, so the smaller processes yield many extra available transistors.

      A truly "atomic" operation is one that involves only two-level-logic (minterms or maxterms). Any design can be simplified to this, although a floating-point multiplier would be an amazingly large array of gates. Any operation that takes more than two propogation delays can be subdivided, although you will observe diminishing returns. There is no such thing as "infinitely fast", a clock cycle will always require 2*(propogation delay) plus a little for bookkeeping. So-called "Dynamic" logic does things in exactly this way.

      Now, I/O to the actual die becomes the major bottleneck, since parasitic reactances on the pins start becoming a serious issue. So the actual caching strategies do need to be improved to keep the processor busy (rather than waiting on system RAM). I will note that several "alternative" solutions have come as a result of this, usually involving interspersing small CPU's with static RAM in a big die, or using FPGA's for computation (which is my personal favorite). Alternatively, explicit caching is difficult to program, but performs very well.

      Sorry to flame.

  95. Cheating by epaiuk · · Score: 1

    Anyone else feel cheated? Moore's law states a doubling should occur every 18 months. 6 years is four doublings but, instead of 32 GHz, we get 20.....what a crock....;)

    E

    --
    Elian Paiuk
    1. Re:Cheating by slamb · · Score: 1

      Anyone else feel cheated? Moore's law states a doubling should occur every 18 months. 6 years is four doublings but, instead of 32 GHz, we get 20.....what a crock....;)

      Yeah, I know where you're coming from.

      But Moore's Law is just an observation of something that seems to hold fairly true. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever come close to even hypothesizing why it should be true, much less proving it.

      This statement is also true of some more established laws, though. We've changed our understanding of physics quite a lot, for example. The universe doesn't obey our laws...our laws attempt to model the universe.

    2. Re:Cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think those sorts of laws are a dime a dozen - its just that in this case the rule is simple (*2 each 18 months).

  96. Re:Anything that shaves even a few minutes off my by Surt · · Score: 2

    Check out your hard drive ... my compile is disk load bound on a medium size project, I would expect any project with more than 10 meg of source code or so, particularly with a lot of small files would tend to be disk bound on most modern machines.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  97. Re:Intel's challenge for current & future IC p by AbsoluteRelativity · · Score: 1

    According to Moores law shouldnt they be at 32ghz in 6 years (based upon their current 2ghz processor)?

    --
    disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
  98. Like it'll get that far. by Balooza · · Score: 1

    The fact that IBM say in 6 years we'll be at 20Ghz is purely to show where the tech could possibly go, it definitely isn't a serious prediction. By then another technology or possibly a combination of technologies will have superceded this one. For now, though, this is cool. Where can I buy one?

  99. Re:Intel's challenge for current & future IC p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, considering that actual performance won't increase by nearly a large enough margin, even with chips a 32 Ghz, it should probably be more like 50 Ghz. Of course, we'll all be running Sun's asynchronous processors by then, so who's counting. :)

  100. Damage Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel can't take the heat of AMD kicking there sorry bloated (20 cycle) arse.

    So they make useless news like this, woah. Anything will be possible in ~10 years.

    Maybe Intel should do what AMD do, stop making useless news so that the IPO goes up for a while to make shareholder happy - and concentrate on making good CPUs.... But that will never happen.

    VapourWare 4 eva.

  101. Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm. Moore's Law suggests a speed doubling every 18 months or so. That means 8 times faster in 4.5 years and 16 times faster in 6 years. So when Intel offers us 10 times faster in 6 years it really only shows its getting harder to keep up with Moore's Law...

  102. Re:127 post and not one "imagine a beowolf cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these things! :)

  103. Re:Yeah, YOU, Muslim boy. I'm talking at YOU. by happyhippy · · Score: 0

    Small genitalia is back again...

  104. Intel is not just CPUs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey software geeks. Intel is not just about CPUs. They're in the telecom components business as well.

    Telecom components for optical communications have been running 10 Gbit/s for 4-5 years now. The next step is 40 Gbit/s for which there isn't any viable packaging technology just now.

    The new packaging technology for 20 GHz would be suitable for just that (with a few optimisations). Gbit/s vs. GHz, please note the difference.

    The learning for the CPU packages is different. They basically don't need that high line speeds, but they need to master the art of stacking many 2.5-10 Gbit/s low speed lines for the memory bus.

  105. THIS should be more interesting. by Infin8 · · Score: 1

    The 'fun' should no longer be about how 'amazingly fast' the obscenely dense level of electrons run at, but instead in how these obscenely dense electrons get switched and managed.

    So Intel can eleminate some more resistance, by removing some metal from the connections between CPU and Mobo, which will undoubtably lead to faster cpu / bus speeds. What I am still waiting to see, though, is something innovative, like the combining of multiple processor cores in one chip, or even *gasp* the development of an entirely new architecture..... You can only make a 2 cylinder engine do so much work. Increase the demand for work, and you'd better design a engine with more power, not just greater speed.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars) Hm..... How many chars is 120? I suppose I could count them
  106. Hang about.... by Infin8 · · Score: 1

    That'd be interesting. Find out how many BTUs a machine generates. Compare to how many BTUs are generated by a human performing the same task (even if this requires a week of pencil-scribbling-maths(tm)). Will the Px 20Ghz be more efficient than the human? Should we be working towards this efficiency, if it hasnt yet been reached? As thermal output is (usually) linked to power consumption, I assume this would ensure minute power requirements... Burn no holes in your pockets.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars) Hm..... How many chars is 120? I suppose I could count them
  107. Re:Anything that shaves even a few minutes off my by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Have you tried using a RAM drive? You should be able to save the source or output on it. (Of course if you loose power you're boned) It's been a long time since I've had the need for one, so I can't remember the name of the proggy. You can probably find in on tucows, or another shareware site.

    --
    Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
  108. Mainframes.... by cnelzie · · Score: 1


    Actually, I know of not a single mainframe running on Intel anythings. However, the programmers in the R&D team at my office program on PC desktops. Currently they are using Pentium III processors and are using a COBOL IDE.

    I am all for moving forward with technology. I would also like to see what is being used for the forseeable future to be supported.

    --
    .sig seperator
    --

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?