Where's My 10 Ghz PC?

An anonymous reader writes "Based on decades of growth in CPU speeds, Santa was supposed to drop off my 10 Ghz PC a few weeks back, but all I got was this lousy 2 Ghz dual processor box -- like it's still 2001...oh please! Dr. Dobbs says the free ride is over, and we now have to come up with some concurrency, but all I have is dollars... What gives?"

Comments

Heat is the problem

[CPNABEND]

Multi-processing is the way to go. We need to do that to help heat dissipation...

Re:Heat is the problem

[WaZiX]

The CPU spends as much as 75% of its time idle because its waiting patiently for the memory to give it something to do. With Systems only delivering information at a max of 1 Ghz and processors going up to almost 4 times as fast... Studies also show that they could in term be able to squeeze 20 Ghz out of wires as long as 20 inches (and only by 2010 will we be able to achieve that), but that would only be sufficient for the 32 nanometer generation of microships (and we're quite ahead of that)... So i think the future resides in optical connections within the motherboard, allowing processors to finally... well... process ;-)

Engineering within limits brings great results

[skrysakj]

I remember the old days, when programmers nudged every
single bit of speed and capability out of the machines they had.
When computer engineers, faced with limits, still made magic
happen.

I hope this ushers that habit back into the profession. We have a lot of great technology, right now, let's find a better way to use it and make it more ubiquitous.

Re:Engineering within limits brings great results

[arkanes]

Er... yes? Do you actually REMEMBER how you used a computer back then? On my Windows 95 machine with 8 megs of ram swapping was slow enough that effective multitasking was out. On my modern spiffy computer I keep use multiple instances of enormous memory hogs of applications (that do stuff that nobody would have even considered adding to an application in 1995, like real-time analysis of a 50 meg C++ code tree), dozens of browser windows, all without flinching. At the article says, it's capability increase rather than absolute performance increase - there is no need whatsoever for a word processor that's faster than you can type. Speaking of that, in 1990 it was really easy to type faster than the Macs in our computer lab could keep up. So yes, MY applications certainly feel faster than they did 5 or 10 years ago. If yours don't then you either a) don't actually do anything that exploits the new power of your computer and your processor, and therefore don't need it or b) are looking at the past through rose colored glasses and don't remember when it took a weekend to run a compile, rather than it happening incrementally in the background without you even noticing.

Re:Asymptotic

[BrianHursey]

True we have found limits to materials hence we need to think out of the box and find new materials.

A Good Thing?

[rdc_uk]

To my mind it _might_ be a good thing if the rampant speed-advance slowed (a lot).

Consider:

We might get some return to efficient coding being the norm, instead of writing systems anyhow and throwing more/faster hardware at it until it runs acceptably (Microsoft; its you I'm looking at!)

Your (and your business') desktop machine might _not_ become obsolete in no more than 2 years, and mmight continue in useful service as something more sensible than a whole PC doing the job of a router...

Processor designers might spend more time (i know they already spend some) on innovating new ideas, rather than solving the problems with just ramping up clock speeds.

Cooling/Quietening technology might have a snowball's chance in hell of catching up with heat output?

(and the wild dreaming one)
Games writers might remember about gameplay, rather than better coloured lighting...

Re:A Good Thing?

[nine-times]

Processor designers might spend more time (i know they already spend some) on innovating new ideas, rather than solving the problems with just ramping up clock speeds....Games writers might remember about gameplay, rather than better coloured lighting...

These both relate to a trend in the market that I believe we're seeing. Consumers are finding that their "old" computers from 2 years ago are still doing their jobs. When I have a 2Ghz Dell that I use for web surfing, word-processing, and e-mail, there's no benefit to upgrading to the newest 3.4 Ghz Dell. Though there's a hefty speed bump in there, most users will never know the difference.

Therefore, developers/manufacturers are being forced to focus on things like usability and features. They're making their products smaller and more efficient, easier to use, and making them fit transparently into the user's life better. They're focusing on the whole "convergence" idea.

Instead of people spending money on RAM upgrades, the money is going to smaller/lighter/better digital cameras, iPods, and home theater technology. In short, instead of seeing the same box being rolled out every year with better stats, we're seeing new boxes coming out every year with pretty much the same stats, but better designed boxes-- boxes that are actually more useful than last year's model, and not just faster.

I, for one, hope the trend continues.

Re:Well Moore's Law is not a law...

[jj_johny]

No, Moore's law was about price performance not about absolute performance. If you look at the cost of a PC it has consistently gotten better performance while decreasing in price. Nearer to the beginning of the PC revolution it was all performance inprovement and very little price drop. Then in the early 90s it was kind of balanced. Then the 2000 to 2004 was all about the machines getting cheaper with performance nudging along.

But now even you cheapest PC covers most users needs. So the CPU designers will continue to inovate but they will find that people will be able to keep their PCs and other electronics longer. Fundementally, the CPU business will start loosing steam and slow down. When people don't need to get new machines, they won't. The precieved premium for the high end products is getting less and less.

Re:Asymptotic

[lucifuge31337]

Without a major breakthrough, which isn't something I'd bet on, I'll agree that we are very close to the limits of silicon based CPUs.

Remember when 9600 baud was close to the limit of copper? Then 33.6. Then they changed how the pair was used, and made 128K ISDN. Then they changed it again and we're getting 7-10 MB DSL....sometimes even faster depending.

I find it hard to say the we're close to the limits of any technology in the computer/telecom field. Someone always seems to find a new way around it.

Re:Asymptotic

[arivanov]

No,

The lack of breakthrough will be due to something entirely different.

So far we have been exploiting the fruits of fundamental material science, physics and chemistry research done in the 60-es (if not earlier), 70-es and to a small extent in the 80-es. There has been nothing fundamentally new done in the 90-es. A lot of nice engineering - yes. A lot of clever manufacturing techniques silicon of insulator being a prime example - yes. But nothing as far as the underlying science is concerned.

This is not just the semiconductor industry. The situation is the same across the board. The charitable foundations and the state which used to be the prime source of fundamental research funding now require a project plan and a date when the supposed product will deliver a result (thinly disguised words for profit). They also do not invest into projects longer then 3 years.

As a result noone looks at things that may bring a breakthrough and there shall be no breakthroughs until this situation changes