Slashdot Mirror
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?"
We've found the limits of silicon and hard drives and they are being approached asyptotically. Relax...
More
since the mid 90s thats all I have built - they really do extend the time before you feel compelled to upgrade. Sure there are not that many apps that run threads on each CPU. But to me a large part of it is that I run many applications simultaneously. With 2 CPU's I rarely get any sluggish feel. And if one app is being especially hoggish I can set it to run on one cpu and flip another important app to the other cpu.
This time around I also sprung for a hardware raid card and set up a 10 array. That has helped quite a bit with system responsiveness.
I've also turned off as much eye candy as possible. After a couple days its really not missed and things are much snappier.
yeah it would be great if I could run out and get some 10GHz chips to fry a few eggs on, but I think my dual MP2200's still have a bit of life in them.
Why the size restraints on processors? Could a processor be made twice as fast if it could be made twice the size? When we hit the limit on how small transistors can be made, could processors continue to increase in speed by making them larger? I see no need why computers need to keep a processor size to two inches square.
Ramping up clock speeds is hitting some serious limitations as far as increasing the work done by a machine is concerned. There are lots of ways to get work done faster. They are just harder to market without some good, popular, and independent benchmarking standards. At some point engine manufacturers realized that increasing the cubic centimeters of displacement in an engine was not the best way to make it faster or more powerful. Now most car reviews include horsepower. Clock speed is analogous to CCs.
Multi-processing is the way to go. We need to do that to help heat dissipation...
So, you think that using multiple iterations of an inherently power-hungry technology will somehow solve the power problem? While, certainly, we could back off clock speeds with multi-processing and reduce heat considerably, but, people always want the cutting edge so the demand to "crank it up" would still be a profitable venture, thus pressuring the price of the lower-end stuff.
Look at page 8. Processors are approaching the heat density of a nuclear reactor. Silicon is dead. We'll need something else if we want more clock cycles (or perhaps a new computing paradigm... something "non-Von Neumann).
More
Whenever the government "picks winners" rather than letting nature pick winners, the technologists and therefore technology loses.
(Now that Cray is dead, according to the supercomputing FAQ, "The CCC intellectual property was purchased for a mere $250 thousand by Dasu, LLC - a corporation set up and (AFAIK) wholly owned by Mr. Hub Finkelstein, a Texas oilman. He's owned this stuff for five years and hasn't done anything with it.")
Secondly, as I've discussed before both operating system and database programming are awaiting the development of relations, most likely via the predicate calculus, as a foundation for software. Both are essentially parallel processing foundations for software.
This feeds into quantum computing quite nicely as well, as relations are not just inherently parallel, but are parallel in such a way that they precisely model quantum software.
Seastead this.
And to think, that apple's CPUs are nearly at the same 'number speed' in the mhz race now!
Who would'a ever thought to see that happen?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
There is one law in computer programming that is even more certain than Moore's Law: Over time, the user is going to do less work for the computer and the computer is going to do more work for the user.
Remember back when users had to wait in line in front of a terminal to run their punchcards through the mainframe? Back then, human time was cheap and computer time expensive. Nowadays the user's time is paramount.
Multithreaded programming breaks this law: It is hard to do multithreaded programming- Humans just don't think that way very well. To do it in a way that an arbitrary program (i.e. not a ray tracer) can see consistent performance gains in a multi-CPU environment is almost PhD-level hard. Making single-threaded software is already a major undertaking and anyone thinking that, in general, they should start designing all their programs as fundamentally concurrent programs is going to fall behind their competition due to other factors (security, features, etc.).
Instead, the only way concurrent programming is going to play a major role for the majority of software, I believe, is at the compiler and OS levels: The OS and compiler designers are going to have to do their utmost to transform single-threaded software to perform optimally in a multi-CPU environment- These folks are going to have to take up the slack that the slow CPUs clockspeeds are causing in terms of limiting the speed of Software- Concurrent programming at the application-level is only going to play a minor role in this, in my opinion.
... and will always be! ;-) I think I first read this qoute sometimes in late 80s/early 90s, and it is still true. You know why? Ever looked at power dissipation specks of even the simplest GaAs chips? You would not want to build a processor out of those, Cray tried with Cray 4 and failed... ;-(
;-)
superconductors is the way to go for highest speeds/most concentrated processing power, due to extremely small power dissipation and extremely high clock frequencies (60 GHz for logic is relatively easy right now), but the problem is that after someone invests $3B in a modern semiconductor fab they do NOT want to build a $30M top-of the line superconductor fab to compete with it. IBM would be a good candidate for this, but they got burned on superconductor computer project back in 80s and would not touch it with 10 foot pole now, though both logic and fab has changed dramatically since then.
Disclosure: on my day job I do design III-V chips, and I used to design superconductor chips up until recently, now trying to push that technology forward is more of a night job for me...
Paul B.
### The limits are high enough now to not care.
The throuble is that this is assumption is wrong. The computers would in theory be fast enough to not care about optimization all over the place, the throuble is that a lot of bad programming doesn't result in just linear decrease of speed. If I use linear lookup instead of a hash-table, speed will go down, quite a bit more down then the amount of speed of the CPU increases over time.
Simple example, Gedit, an extremly basic text-editor takes 4-5 seconds to load on a 1Ghz Athlon, MSDOS edit on the other side on 386er started in a fraction of a second. From a feature point of view both do basically the same. Gedit for sure has some more advanced rendering and GUI and isn't a text-mode application like MSDOS edit, however shouldn't it be possible with todays CPUs which are quite a bit faster then back then to have an application that has better rendering then text-mode, but still be at least as fast or faster then back then?
This was spewed from Intel in 2002:
"First, by switching to the Pentium 4 architecture, Intel can drastically boost the clock speed. The old server Xeon topped out at 1.4GHz. The new one debuts at 1.8GHz, 2GHz and 2.2GHz, and will eventually pass 10GHz, she said."
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-843879.html
I can't find the exact quote and article, but another Intel exec/rep stated that this goal would be achieved by 2006.
Well, it's 2005, the P4 has topped out at 3.6ghz and has been discontinued because Intel has determined that the P4 arcitecture is streached to the limit.
Bottom line is that we should be expecting a 10ghz processor soon because Intel brazenly stated that they would produce one. Whenever they do make these statements the AP drools over the story, stock prices jump and I'm sure investors get excited.
Instead, their next gen processor is a 2ghz Pentuim M dothan. Intel should be ashamed of themselves for lying to the public and should be investigated for inflating their stock value though fictional claims about their processor technology.
If you crave the challenge of making tight, efficient code, sometimes with very little under you but the bare chip itself, then embedded systems might be the place for you.
cue the grumpy old man voice: "Why back in my day, we didn't have 64-bit multi-core chips with gigabytes of memory to waste, no sir, we had to write in assembly code for 8-bit processors, and WE LOVED IT!"
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.