Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    27,269
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,680 times in 584 posts

    Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    x86 clock speed race ended due to the superscalar 'conveyor level' says Intel.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Comrade Moose CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Moosetopia
    Posts
    28,061
    Thanks
    3,091
    Thanked
    4,324 times in 3,354 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Maybe some games devs need informing too,as too many engines seem to just push one or two cores still.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    14 times in 12 posts
    • LeetyMcLeet's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.4GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 250GB Sammy 840 Evo (OS), 500GB Sammy 850 Evo (Games) and 4 x 2TB HDD's (Pr0n)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2x GTX 670 2GB (Gigabyte WF3 Overclocked)
      • PSU:
      • beQuiet! SP 680W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design R4 (Black)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS IPS
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity Business (80/20 FTTC)

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Maybe some games devs need informing too,as too many engines seem to just push one or two cores still.
    We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.

  4. #4
    Comrade Moose CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Moosetopia
    Posts
    28,061
    Thanks
    3,091
    Thanked
    4,324 times in 3,354 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by LeetyMcLeet View Post
    We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.
    I would say the opposite - the engines which scaled well with more cores seem to be in use in consoles,ie,like the Frostbite engine. Most of the games which don't scale well them tend, to be more PC focused and the devs have just re-used ancient engines or modified them,some of which are based on stuff from the 1990s. Bethesda Game Studios is a prime example of this,and so are many PC orientated MMOs,etc like WoW and PS2. Even when they attempt to multi-thread the engines,you still see very poor core loading despite that.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  5. Received thanks from:

    MLyons (22-02-2018)

  6. #5
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    28,690
    Thanks
    1,410
    Thanked
    2,835 times in 2,303 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 950
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD HD7870
      • PSU:
      • XFX Pro 650W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by LeetyMcLeet View Post
    We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.
    Nah it's the opposite of this - consoles all use AMD processors which tend to be less great at single threaded.

  7. #6
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    8,939
    Thanks
    408
    Thanked
    885 times in 755 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Sorry, but that is a very confused article. It confuses superscaler (more than one instruction at once) with pipelined (break instruction execution up into sections). So x86 is a pipelined implementation (bad use of the word architecture) and some bits of the pipeline are hard to make faster so you add stages and make the pipeline much longer which adds transistors and makes branch prediction failure more expensive.

    We can hit 5GHz with modern processors with a good overclock, double sounds possible, but the point is that the system at 10GHz would be slower than what we have. It isn't that we *can't* hit 10GHz, it is just that it doesn't help.

    Edit: The whole thing sounds like an advert for the Amulet asynchronous ARM chip from a decade ago. Wonder what ever happened to that group.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,188
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked
    79 times in 70 posts

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by LeetyMcLeet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Maybe some games devs need informing too,as too many engines seem to just push one or two cores still.
    We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.
    I disagree, Consoles have lots of weak performing cores, they multi-thread quite intensely.

  9. #8
    Hooning about Hoonigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Renfrew, Scotland.
    Posts
    1,647
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    284 times in 199 posts
    • Hoonigan's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z270 Gaming M7
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 7700k @ 5.0GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4 3000MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970 EVO + 512GB XPG S10
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX1080Ti GAMING X TRIO
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet Straight Power 11 650W
      • Case:
      • BeQuiet Dark Base Pro 900
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34UM95-P + ASUS ROG PG279
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Vivid 400

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    We can hit 5GHz with modern processors with a good overclock
    Aye, incredibly easy if you go with Intel. Ryzen users are getting a sweat on trying to reach 4GHz

  10. #9
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    8,939
    Thanks
    408
    Thanked
    885 times in 755 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoonigan View Post
    Aye, incredibly easy if you go with Intel. Ryzen users are getting a sweat on trying to reach 4GHz
    lol, or my old FX8350.

    It does amuse me though that the Pentium 4 failing to hit 4GHz was taken as the end of the GHz race, yet here we are with i7 chips going way way faster than that.
    Last edited by DanceswithUnix; 22-02-2018 at 05:34 PM.

  11. #10
    Hooning about Hoonigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Renfrew, Scotland.
    Posts
    1,647
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    284 times in 199 posts
    • Hoonigan's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z270 Gaming M7
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 7700k @ 5.0GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4 3000MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970 EVO + 512GB XPG S10
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX1080Ti GAMING X TRIO
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet Straight Power 11 650W
      • Case:
      • BeQuiet Dark Base Pro 900
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34UM95-P + ASUS ROG PG279
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Vivid 400

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    lol, or my old FX8350.

    It does amuse me though that the Pentium 4 failing to hit 4GHz was taken as the then of the GHz race, yet here we are with i7 chips going way way faster than that.
    Yeah, my 7700K hits 5.2GHz now that I've delidded it, while keeping temps under 70°C. I've not tried pushing it any further yet.
    I've also seen the 8700K hitting 5.5GHz on air, with a tiny bump in voltage.

  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London (almost)
    Posts
    1,077
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked
    34 times in 28 posts

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    Well Pentium 4 was really peak Mghz they made the pipeline very deep, making each instruction very small, which allowed them to really crank up the clock speeds. Meanwhile AMDs architecture had better performance at a lower clock... even Pentium 3 at equivalent clock speed outperformed it, sometimes.
    It actually scaled pretty well, starting at under 1ghz and reaching over 3ghz.

    Meanwhile intel's mobile cpus which were more inline P2/3 architecture lead the way for core2 and then the clock speed race ended

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    5 times in 3 posts

    Re: Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

    I kind of remember being really excited about Quad core et al a long time ago. Octagon cpu's and even bigger.
    Real reason why cpu speed hasn't increased is because AMD dropped off the ether and there is no competition.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •