Comment on Intel predicts 10GHz chips by 2011 (from 2000)Comments−pwpwp15yan estimation over 11 years that's off by a factor of three (or 2 for IBM's z196 processor at 5 GHz) is good−hugh315yNot when they were already making 1.5 GHz chips in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4, see Willamette).−rbanffy15yIt has four cores. I would count it as a 20 GHz unit.Seriously, even the "mid 2011: 128 GHz" is not that off: how many cores are in a gaming-heavy GPU?−Dn_Ab15yI wouldn't because not all parallel algorithms result in a constant linear speed up with respect to cores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelization#Amdahl.27s_law_...−bnegreve15yNo, you don't go twice faster with two cars.−rbanffy15yIt depends on what you want. If you want to move your furniture from house A to house B, I grant you I can move them in half the time with twice as many cars.If the workload can be divided, multi-core is a solution.
Comments
an estimation over 11 years that's off by a factor of three (or 2 for IBM's z196 processor at 5 GHz) is good
Not when they were already making 1.5 GHz chips in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4, see Willamette).
It has four cores. I would count it as a 20 GHz unit.
Seriously, even the "mid 2011: 128 GHz" is not that off: how many cores are in a gaming-heavy GPU?
I wouldn't because not all parallel algorithms result in a constant linear speed up with respect to cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelization#Amdahl.27s_law_...
No, you don't go twice faster with two cars.
It depends on what you want. If you want to move your furniture from house A to house B, I grant you I can move them in half the time with twice as many cars.
If the workload can be divided, multi-core is a solution.