Where'd the gigahertz go? - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2006, 01:04 AM   #1 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6
Default Where'd the gigahertz go?

Hello, first time poster here. I was just wondering where all the gigahertz went. I remember when the biggest number meant the most processing speed -- and maybe that's still true -- but why did the numbers jump from around like 3.8 to the 2.2 vicinity? I think it's something about new architectures, but I can't find much to explain it. I saw this one good-looking site (A CPU History by David Risley), but it seemed kind of old, and I didn't want to read through 11 pages to find out it didn't address what I really wanted to know. So if anyone has an answer or a couple links to some good sites or articles, I'd appreciate it big.

Thanks a mill,
nomad
__________________

nomad10101 is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 01:25 AM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

omg

The gigaherts war is over, and has been over since the release of the Opteron. Well, the K7 really, but the Opteron really got everyone's attention.
__________________

The General is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 02:31 AM   #3 (permalink)
G33K P0W3R!!!!
 
bmxfreakrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HickTown, California (hesperia), and West Hollywood
Posts: 2,068
Default

by any chance are you comparing amd to intel? if so a 2.2ghz amd ~ intel 3.8....its in another fourm on another catagorey, it explains it(also with nvidia vs ati, lcd vs crt, powersupply vs powersupply, etc..it goes on,, 23 pages, i got to 15 and fell aslep...
__________________
Listen to my music! and random/funny videos XD
Need a HDTV? Come find me at BestBuy #108 in Victorville XD
:D-----v Just pwnt my cpu, 900mhz OC v-----:D
bmxfreakrider is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 03:20 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bmxfreakrider
by any chance are you comparing amd to intel? if so a 2.2ghz amd ~ intel 3.8
Eh? Not anymore, buddy. And I don't think it was ever that extreme, maybe a 2.6Ghz AMD ~ 3.7Ghz Intel, but the Core Duo ended that, and now the Core 2 Duo is the Core Duo coming back for dessert.
The General is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 04:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
ATIRAGEPRO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,400
Send a message via AIM to ATIRAGEPRO Send a message via Yahoo to ATIRAGEPRO
Cool "I'm just bored, it's not my fault..."

I think the market is leaning a bit more towards the size of one's Cache ($), rather than how fast a CPU likes to Move it - move it.

What I'm saying is, Instead of company's like IBM making their CPU's soo freken hot by making the hurtz faster, and people spending hundreds more trying to keep the CPU on dub and really ICY, they are doing the next best thing; Instead of making it just go faster, why not make it handle more DATA at once? It has the same effect, but no disrespect!!

Maybe Gigaherts being 'High" will be a thing of the past... Just Maybe...

Anyway, this kind of funny because at first glance, I thought this was one of those n00bish questions like:


It wasn't.
__________________


Quote:
Originally posted by bonehelm
WTF ROFLMAO !!!! WTF OMFG LOL !!!! PARDON THE ****KING CAPS IM SO ROFL NOW !!!

I just found out I\'ve been using direct X 8.1 since its out.
He who knows when enough is enough will always have enough... - Lao Tzu
ATIRAGEPRO is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 05:16 PM   #6 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6
Default

reply

Ok. Well, none of those posts really helped, for the most part. Any links to official articles, anyone?

I wasn't comparing intel to amd, those numbers just seem to be what most websites offer on standard type models.

So, the war of the gigahurtz is over, and the emphasis is on doing more at once instead of faster. Thas helped. I read something about bigger data pipes that handle more? I guess that was it, then?

My biggest confusion or problem though is I used to be able to measure a computer by the number of gighertz. But now, the number seems useless.. So now I'm looking for a reference or minimum benchmark to pit all other machines against. It doesn't seem to be just about the one number now. Now it's about the cache and all other sorts of more technical hardware attributes. New technology forces the layman to learn more..

Anyway, though, if anyone has a link they consider informative and relatively easy to get trhough, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
Nomad.
nomad10101 is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 05:53 PM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

You don't understand, the emphasis isn't on doing more instead of faster, it's doing more and faster.

Higher clock speed doesn't mean faster anymore.

Picture it like a 3 lane highway with a speed limit of 100mph, compared to a 16 lane highway with a speed limit of 65mph, which one would transport more cars in 1 hour? (The 16 lane one would. )

We are able to do more operations per clock cycle now, which means that a new 2.2ghz Athlon 64 would obliterate a 2.2ghz Athlon XP. Just like how a 2.16Ghz Intel Core Duo will obliterate a 2.16Ghz Pentium 4.
The General is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 07:16 PM   #8 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 793
Default

ROFL you said "obliderate" (one of my favorite words)
__________________



\"I may or may not have put a loaf of bread in the dish washer\"
\"Once you go white a trailer is in sight\"
COD2_fanatic is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 08:48 PM   #9 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6
Default

Ok. I think I get it. The P4 3.8 (or whatever) is slower than the newer model 2.16's and whatnot because these newer ones, from whatever technical reason, have 16 lanes? So the lanes are the amount it can do, while the speed [limit] kind of doesn't matter as much.. This newer one doesn't neceserily go by nature as "fast" as the other older ones, but its newer design can do more, hence it's overall faster.. I think I get that, if I'm right. So, basically I need to just forget the idea of processor numbers and focus more on other attributes of the thing. Like I said before, it was much easier determining which CPU to get when all you had to do was read the number.

Thank Y'all!
Nomad.
nomad10101 is offline  
Old 08-06-2006, 09:17 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

Well, they don't have 16 lanes, but they do more operations per clock cycle. The 16 lane thing was just an analogy to show you how it works, but you've got the idea.
__________________

The General is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.