Anyone else think that CPU manufacturers should focus more on speed than si

[Anibal P]

Go get a 1st gen I5, and a current gen I5, same mhz, I guarantee you the new one will be faster even if they have the same clock speed and cores, that comes from making the dies smaller as well as manufacturing and programming improvements

[ViperAFK]

by making them smaller aren't they giving themselves the ability to make them quicker?

Exactly, making them smaller gives cooler temperatures, less power usage which in turn leads to faster processors. CPU's with high power usage and temps will hit a speed "wall". See the pentium 4 for example.

[MillionVoltss]

http://www.fellowgeek.com/a-Intel-Releases-Roadmap-Developing-5-nm-Chips-ix2088.html

Watch the video.

[c3ntury]

I personally do not care how much power it consumes and it is usually only a few watts difference. I rather them focus on instead of trying to make the CPU smaller instead keep it the same size and focus on making it faster..... What do you guys think?

Smaller transistors allow for more of them, which is typically what makes a CPU more powerful.

[djdanster]

The smaller the die, the bigger the heat is what I remember being said to me once.

[xendrome]

There's no need to focus on speed any more. Even the i3s are more than fast enough to cope with anything pretty much that you won't ever max out a single core - gameplay wise this certainly holds true. You can have a pretty cheap and relatively poor processor in there that won't bottleneck the system.

I dunno what games you are playing, but try Skyrim on 2560x1600 with a medium range graphics card and a i3 then get back to me..

[Kelxin]

I dunno what games you are playing, but try Skyrim on 2560x1600 with a medium range graphics card.

Nuff said. The new nvidia cards just announced will actually do all the heavy lifting remotely and stream the video to a client requiring almost zero CPU or video usage. What you're talking about is almost complete video card dependance, not CPU.

[Wakers]

I dunno what games you are playing, but try Skyrim on 2560x1600 with a medium range graphics card and a i3 then get back to me..

Well the problem would, obviously, be the medium range graphics card :D

Numpty.

i3 and top of the range graphics card at 2560x1600 and it will fly, no worries.

[Rigby]

The smaller the die, the bigger the heat is what I remember being said to me once.

Smaller dies require less voltage meaning less heat.

[djdanster]

Smaller dies require less voltage meaning less heat.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up ;)

[watchthisspace]

Nuff said. The new nvidia cards just announced will actually do all the heavy lifting remotely and stream the video to a client requiring almost zero CPU or video usage. What you're talking about is almost complete video card dependance, not CPU.

What? So when you purchase a GTX670,680,690, you're buying a big piece of metal that doesn't nothing??

Smaller dies require less voltage meaning less heat.

That's true, however the smaller die means less area for heat to escape, making cooling the CPU a harder job.

[Glassed Silver]

CPUs have been more than fast enough for most use cases since the introduction of the Core2Duo back in 2006 at latest. I don't mind slight speed increases, sure; but I'd rather Intel and AMD keep focusing on making their CPUs use less power. Remember the insane power usage of the Pentium 4 class CPUs? We really don't need to go back there.

Oh bloody hell did they suck power LOL :laugh:

Good old times...

Well, I think making the CPUs jucier is always a good thing, then again I do lots of post-production and converting, so it comes naturally I ask for more whenever I can :laugh:

3.4GHz i7 Quad ftw :p

Glassed Silver:mac

[rfirth]

Nobody has mentioned the speed of light yet... with billions of transistors, the electrical path through them is quite long. The speed that information can be transmitted through the processor is limited by the speed of light. By making the distances between transistors smaller, it should reduce the propagation delay.

If you have a 3.6 GHz processor... each clock cycle is 0.278 ns. Light travels only 3.2 inches in one clock cycle.

[cropcircles]

Ironically I have been working on developing a "piggy back" miniature CPU that would attach to current processors that would continue to run for specific functions when the computer is shut off, such as file sharing, etc,.. (Any of you remember being able to turn on your radio or wiper blades using ACC when the car was turned off) I'm pretty excited.

[Raa]

The speed that information can be transmitted through the processor is limited by the speed of light.

I hate it when the speed of light prevents my electronic CPU from going faster.

[articuno1au]

^ Showing a complete lack of understanding of physics and electronics O.o

[*RedBull*]

I think the topic starter is correct. Focus on less power consumption for the current speed is the way to go at this point. I've traded in my desktop for an Intel i3core which uses less power and is way faster. There are no heat issues. But I believe overall industrial focus should be on less power consumption.

[Marshall Veteran]

Focus on spelling -- than :laugh:

And we have enuff Speed.

You forgot Manufacturers :rofl:

[*RedBull*]

Nobody has mentioned the speed of light yet... with billions of transistors, the electrical path through them is quite long. The speed that information can be transmitted through the processor is limited by the speed of light. By making the distances between transistors smaller, it should reduce the propagation delay.

If you have a 3.6 GHz processor... each clock cycle is 0.278 ns. Light travels only 3.2 inches in one clock cycle.

Yeah that would be true but each transistor is travelled through simultaneously is it not?

[rfirth]

I hate it when the speed of light prevents my electronic CPU from going faster.

^ Showing a complete lack of understanding of physics and electronics O.o

Are you suggesting that electrons can travel faster than the speed of light? The speed of light provides an absolute upper bound. Electrons are much slower (0.59c to 0.77c).

If light travels only 3.2 inches in one clock cycle, an electron certainly isn't going to travel any further.

http://en.wikipedia....lay#Electronics

Yeah that would be true but each transistor is travelled through simultaneously is it not?

Nope. I mean, some are. The CPU can do several things in parallel - which is why pipelining works. But for each stage in the pipeline, it's a linear/sequential [not actually the correct terminology] circuit with a measurable propagation delay. The clock speed is bound by the length of time for the longest stage in the pipeline to complete.

[mbowman]

Also, on top of this, even a fairly slow cpu with an SSD added to it will benefit greatly in terms of speed. Do you have one? If you don't, get one and stop complaining about processor speeds :p

Very true!

My pc was feeling a bit slow and I put a new SSD drive in it and now its rapid. I let some friends use my PC the other week and they were so impressed at how fast it is. The processor has 2 cores less than my friends and my pc is faster than his now with doing day to day tasks :shifty:.

[neoadorable]

no, honestly speed is quite 90's to early 2000's. more compute power for less energy expenditure is what we need, and that means shrinking stuff. next year we'll have 12nm transistors, then prob 8nm. after that we'll need to go to some other form of technology altogether. clock speeds are great, but they are not essential. a 2.6GHz 22nm CPU wipes the floor with a 3.4GHz 45nm CPU etc.

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

I think CPU speed has become less important over time... developments with other computing components has sorta eased the pressure off a processor and has made computers faster.. like graphics cards, sound cards, broadband internet and other stuff.

[giantpotato]

Are you suggesting that electrons can travel faster than the speed of light? The speed of light provides an absolute upper bound. Electrons are much slower (0.59c to 0.77c).

If light travels only 3.2 inches in one clock cycle, an electron certainly isn't going to travel any further.

http://en.wikipedia....lay#Electronics

Nope. I mean, some are. The CPU can do several things in parallel - which is why pipelining works. But for each stage in the pipeline, it's a linear/sequential [not actually the correct terminology] circuit with a measurable propagation delay. The clock speed is bound by the length of time for the longest stage in the pipeline to complete.

His point is that there's no reason to bring the speed of light into the equation because electrons don't travel at the speed of light. It's basically like saying the speed of my car is limited by the speed of light, but due to current technology it's only travelling at c/10000000.

[xendrome]

Well the problem would, obviously, be the medium range graphics card :D

Numpty.

i3 and top of the range graphics card at 2560x1600 and it will fly, no worries.

i3 will 100% bottleneck a GTX 680 or GTX 690.....