HoLoDreaM Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Apparently Intel thought we would have 10ghz processors by now. Predicted back in 2000 http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-20000726/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewr05 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I'm having a .ing field day reading those comments. This was done in 2000 and yet people are acting as if it were an unforeseeable distance in the future. \ Even with that being said, I DO think we should be a bit further a long than this. I've heard great things about Intel's newest architecture but really in terms of factoral increases in power we haven't really done a damn thing. Sure compared to the CPUs of 2000 we have INSANE, SUPER, HYPER MEGA SPEED but really in 11 years it really isn't that much of a leap. There were really only a few leaps that I remember well enough to comment on, one of those being when the first CoreDuos pounded the previous Pentium 4s into the ground and another is the new Sandybridge chips that are wrecking Intels own i7s. Not really that great in 11 years if you ask me. /rant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatedmeeting Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 But then they dropped Netburst, and with good reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I thought I remember hearing something that the gigahertz barrier was preventing the huge speed increases so that is why we now have dual, quad, hexa, and octo-core processors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephilumos Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Some of those comments. Ludicrous I tell you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
malmsteenisgod Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Yea I'm enjoying the comments What I find amusing is that the Apple fanboys haven't changed a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatedmeeting Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 But now there's a lot more of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefox11 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Forget 10GHz I want the 128GHz processor as predicted by Rob and make it 100 cores, 400 threads, 40 watt TDP while they are at it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenitaL Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 LOL, kind of like how we haven't really progressed much with the whole Going into space thing too. I mean back in 99 people thought we'd have moon bases and all sorts but nope.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 CPUs today compared to the CPUs from 2000...well, they can't even be compared. We're hundreds of times faster for many things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iskout Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 CPUs today compared to the CPUs from 2000...well, they can't even be compared. We're hundreds of times faster for many things. And yet it's so unsatisfying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyamdfanboi Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 thats because software has increased in complexity as well.. run win 98 on a 4ghz 6 core cpu and it wont see any different to running it on a single core.. but run a single core on win 7 and play bf2.. watch ur comp . itself.. cpus and gpus have come a longggggggggg way from 2000.. very long way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now