Slashdot Mirror
Intel Hits 50 Years and Its CPUs Hit 5.0 GHz (venturebeat.com)
Intel will turn 50 next month, so to celebrate that, its CPUs are hitting 5.0 GHz for the first time, it said. At Computex event in Taiwan this week, the chipmaker announced the limited edition 8th Gen Intel Core i7-8086K processor, the first-ever CPU from the company with a 5.0GHz turbo frequency. From a report: Intel, of course, is the world's biggest chip maker, and its fortunes are wedded to the success of the personal computer. "As we transition to the data-centric era, the PC remains a critical facet of Intel's business, and it's an area where we believe there are still so many opportunities ahead," Bryant said. "Today, at Computex in Taipei, I shared our vision for the future of the PC and introduced a wide range of new technologies that will help us and the broader ecosystem make this future a reality. One that transforms the PC from a simple computer into a platform that can power every person's greatest contribution."
"SPARC T8-2 Server Specifications
ARCHITECTURE
Processor
Thirty-two core, 5.0 GHz SPARC M8 processor
Up to 256 threads per processor"
It's the same Skylake uArch which debuted three years ago and naturally this particular CPU is affected by both Meltdown and Spectre. It's still an accomplishment though since it's the first ever consumer CPU to run at a such an insane clockrate.
Oh, and it will be available in very limited quantities.
Intel celebrates 50 years, and the 8086 Instruction Set Architechure celebrates 45 years.
Great! After 50 years, they're back to 8086, without real memory protection thanks to meltdown and spectre.
Yep, they held them back at least 5 years so it would coincide with their anniversary. Idiots.
Will I need to hit the turbo button on the front of the PC to get this 'Turbo frequency'?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
In 2000, when I was still getting used to saying Gigahertz instead of Megahertz, and they'd bounded up from triple digits to quadruple digits in the span of just a couple of years, it seemed like 3, 4, and 5, GHz processors ought to be just around the corner. I can remember being mystified and disappointed as the path to 2 GHz became increasingly asymptotic. That had been the key metric for so long, watching computer manufacturers re-spin their marketing to talk about other features, or start plugging dual processors instead, was a big shift.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
People have been running Intel processors at 5GHz for years. They may have needed aftermarket cooling solutions, but it's been something that's possible for quite a while. I guess the question is how high people will be able to overclock this 5GHz CPU. If it costs more than the current 8700k and doesn't actually provide any level of overclocking, then I don't really see it as big news.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Is this the early 2000's where we were all drooling over the faster hertz speed of the clock.
We have been parallelizing the chips and software for over a decade now to reach meaningful speed improvements, while not really caring much about the clock speeds. This approach actually has been a good thing, it allowed great improvements in mobile chip design which cannot draw tones of power and doesn't need a radiator to keep it from melting itself.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Pentium IV was supposed to take us to 10 ghz. What happened?
no comments, so I guess same old same old J
I remember when all we had was a paltry 1 GHz clock speed, and we were happy to have that. Get off my lawn!
POWER6 was at 5 GHz in 2008
I really wish they'd built a chip that ran at 4.77 GHz...
This page accidentally left blank
and has 50 security holes
Table-ized A.I.
These are 6 core/12 thread CPUs running at 4.0ghz base clock and 5.0 ghz SINGLE CORE boost. Basically it sounds like they are binned 4700K's. Run is limited to 50,000 units. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12875/intel-announces-the-core-i78086k-coffee-lake-at-5-ghz
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Obviously the growth in clock speed has been exponential (moores law) and goes in major steps process and design changes, but for fun, the linear average increase in clock speed since the launch of the intel 4004 in 1971 (740khz) to the present top line chips (~4.3 Ghz) is 3 Hz per second. Or 3 more cycles per second per second.
This still has the NSA-required flaws, so they are unlikely to actually 'fix' any of the pending issues until people stop buying servers.
I'm done with intel for a while.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Correlation is not causation. (This being Slashdot, someone had to say it.)
The fallacy you were looking for is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this), not "correlation implies causation".
8086K will allow overclocking, that's what the 'K' means.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
(facepalm)
Not even the summary says this is the first 5GHz CPU ever.
No sig today...
This is going back a bit, but the 5GHz threshold is important for another reason... I'm trying to find the exact reference, but back around the time that AMD first released the Athlon CPU, I recall someone from the technology press writing an article which extrapolated what would happen to processor TDPs as clock speeds increased. Obviously we have to bear in mind that die shrinks and improved lithography, better materials and the like all help to drive up the performance-per-watt scale, but this magazine projected that if CPUs [of the day] were ever to scale up to 5GHz, then the thermal-output-per-square inch, extrapolated from the CPU die size, would actually exceed what is found inside a fully-active nuclear reactor.
The amazing thing, then, is not simply that Intel have managed to ship a 5GHz part, but they have done so whilst essentially keeping the thermal profile of the chips more-or-less uniform for a good part of the last few years. In some ways this thermal efficiency is even more impressive than the outright clock speed; it talks to the materials science, packaging design and overall cooling effectiveness, that we've now come to expect from our current crop of processors.
You had a 5GHz P4 in 1998? Makes me wonder why as a teen I spent all my money on a P3 600 Mhz in 2000...
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
What’s so special about this processor?
This processor is Intel’s first 5Ghz out of the box consumer desktop processor, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads, and is unlocked for overclocking*.
*Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.
Samsung is now the world’s biggest chipmaker. Happy birthday, Intel!
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
that these are the first Intel chips to come *out of the box* running at 5 GHz, but I've been running my i7 7700K Kaby Lake at 5 GHz stably for more than a year now, so somehow doesn't seem like that big of a 'wow' to me. Now run them at 6 GHz, now we're talking.
Yes, overclocking means operating out of spec.
News at 11.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
PassMark - CPU Mark Single Thread Performance
AMD Athlon XP 2800+ @ 2.25 GHz / rel. October 1, 2002 / Score: 627
Intel Core i7-8700K @ 3.70GHz (4.7GHz turbo) / rel. October 5, 2017 / Score: 2708 (highest-scoring processor for single thread performance as of June 5, 2018)
Single thread performance ratio: 4.01
**Single thread performance doubling time: 7.5 years**
Note: it's not clear what the best-performing processor was in the early 2000s, the performance doubling time may be even greater.
Moore's law ceased to hold for computing performance quite a while back. Lots of cores doesn't speed up sequential computing tasks (Amdahl's Law).
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
After looking into this .. it looked like Intel scrambled to put something together rather than have something readily available. A closer look reveals it uses the same socket set as the 8176 and 8180 Intel Xeon Platinum Socket LGA 3647 at 28 Cores and 56 Threads. It's basically a Xeon server CPU overclocked to 5Ghz and rigged with an extreme cooling solution to keep from frying the chip. Considering this socket type and CPU, this will be a very niche market for people that want to spend $7,000 to $10,000 on a server CPU if this is the case versus maybe $1600 to $1700 for the new Threadripper 2?
I also found it to be very sketchy that Intel wouldn't show the physical processor where AMD gladly flashed it's product. Does Intel really have a next generation processor to compete with AMD or is this a smoke screen to buy time for Q3.