deep Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 I read in Newsweek a few months back that it tested a 10Ghz processor chip and it was successful. To me, I don't think AMD will be able to compete with Intel for much longer. What does everyone think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 I want one. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 AMD will catch up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 I couldn't find info on this 10GHz chip. I read some about AMD with a new 2.6GHz processer coning in Sept. that will put Intel in the dust. I'll post the info soon. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 yeah that's the thing. It's all very well and good having a 10GHz chip, but that doesn't actually make it good. Take for example the PS2 and the Xbox.... one of which runs at 300MHz and the other that runs at a GHz or so.... I'll leave you to guess which is which Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 IBM already created a ~100GHz chip a few months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Here's a preview of AMDs new offerings and Intels 2.8GHZ chip.http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4967 There are other publications with a little different info since they are keeping it hush-hush and I can get them if you'd like to see. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragoon Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 i heard of that 10ghz chip but i also heard that it ran quiet unstable and after a period of some time either 1day or a week it completely crashed and wouldnt come back to working again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 It,s probably a heat dissapation problem. Heres another place with some info and discussion. http://www.hardforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=469075 Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Does this 10 GHz processor use 32-bit x86 architecture? Also, how many stages is this processor's pipeline? Sure, a chip can run at a huge frequency, but if the pipeline is too large, then this "superchip" will be inefficient, just as the Pentium IV is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 I'd like to see some information on the 10GHz chip too. If anybody has some documentation please direct us to it. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syntax Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I know exactly what he's talking about, I think the 10Ghz chip was called Norman. If it was Norman he was referring to, yes it is 10GHz, but they are working on a cooling system for it. The first prototype of the chip began to almost glow red, and crashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Don't forget there's a big difference between getting a 10GHz chip to work under lab conditions, and having a stable and cost-effective model ready for mass production and sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I say be damned with not making lab projects available to the public. If I could afford a 10GHz chip, I could certainly afford a liquid nitrogen cooling system for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 We used to get prototype samples from AMD back in the late '80s. I stuck monster heat sinks on the chips and found what they promised still was a long ways off. Some of the first 32 bit chips were a real mess. I imagine it is a lot worse now. I still remember burning the crap out of one of my fingers when I touched a heat sink. God, those things ate power then. And it took an extra six months after their promise before we had chips we could use. Back in the dark ages at Rockwell. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 liquid nitrogen can cool just about anything down to acceptable temperatures :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I could afford that in my dreams. I'll wait until they make one that runs cooler. If I live that long. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syntax Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 the chip is called the Intel Itanium2 w\ Titanium core, as the intel I2 chips all have titaniums cores. It's a 64-Bit architecture, with an internal catch that is about 3 gigs, but they came into issues with the motherboard design. I also believe it had a 3.5~4.0GHz frontside bus speed. Which isn't known to the public yet, nor available. Intel plans to use this as a marketting strategy, claiming a huge jump ahead of AMD, which will take them years to catch up. Also, like stated before, the chip is unstable, so Intel has no idea on when it can be ran on stable conditions. :worship: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Silicon based computer systems. I don't think so. Nanoconductor technology. Now thats fast. Silicon can not handle the speeds desktop computers will eventually reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 They'll have to build a new chip fab first. And 10Ghz is only a few years if Moore's law holds. about 2.5years. Anyone remember 'Rambus'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 FANTASY VS REALITY what you want what you need 3ghz + 2ghz 1024 mb 384 Video 128mb 32mb (64 if gamer) 52x cd-rw 32x cd-rw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Rambus rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Even though there is a tremendous difference in speed of front side bus, and data transfer bandwidth, The average orienated or intermediate user will notice no difference in peformace, between rambus and ddr sdram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 You don't need a computer. Most needs are just very strong wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 hey, computer comapnies are selling 3.03Ghz and a bit faster as a top range product, what happened to all the numbers between 3GHz and 10GHz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now