Comments on: Changing the Game – A Brief History of CPU’s http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/ Thinking Outside the Cube Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:43:17 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Jesse Dorland http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Jesse Dorland Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:28:08 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-649 The simple fact is that multi-core cpu were in the market -- mostly used by business community. The only reason Intel, and AMD pushed it into the commercial PC is quite obvious -- they couldn't build 4GHz CPU. There was not a trend -- furthermore to this day Intel, and AMD deny that they have hit the speed wall. This is why we don't see multicore 20ghz cpu -- say each core are around 5ghz... The idea that there is no legit application for such massive power is absurd. We didn't need 2ghz computer to run XP, let alone windows 2000, but they were there b/c companies could produce them. 5ghz multi-core cpu are not in the market b/c Moor's law died 5 years ago. Even he admitted it... The simple fact is that multi-core cpu were in the market — mostly used by business community. The only reason Intel, and AMD pushed it into the commercial PC is quite obvious — they couldn’t build 4GHz CPU. There was not a trend — furthermore to this day Intel, and AMD deny that they have hit the speed wall.

This is why we don’t see multicore 20ghz cpu — say each core are around 5ghz… The idea that there is no legit application for such massive power is absurd. We didn’t need 2ghz computer to run XP, let alone windows 2000, but they were there b/c companies could produce them.

5ghz multi-core cpu are not in the market b/c Moor’s law died 5 years ago. Even he admitted it…

]]> By: stoneagee http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-623 stoneagee Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:37:40 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-623 Sometimes one just can’t believe what you’d see on a piece. This been somehow exemplary, although I have no intention to disagree on the perspective, only that I tend to think the scope of it may be off. Let me try to explain what I mean. Anybody who is familiar with Kai Hwang’s book would know there’s a plethora of exotic design of CPUs in the early days. Heck, the dual issue IBM 360, is it S series or something which is exactly the early incarnation of hyper-threading and multi-core? The other heavy use of contemporary is pipelines. Other than these, aren’t there any other good ideas? How about systolic, or data-flow, or the general MIMP arena? Yeah, these are all dead ideas for the time being, for various reasons, but I would be the first to balk that our imagination is limited to Intel’s innovation plan, as this piece would lead to excitement and over-joy of our collective bright future! Given there are very good reasons why we arrive where we are today, in which this business requires very expensive investment, with a great risk, it is a very difficult business to be in. Hence, I can understand current Intel’s direction and conservatism. However, as an uncommitted Intel user, I don’t have to agree everything Intel has to sell. And would be suspicious of anyone who is leading the Intel architecture only fantasy tomorrow, which is as far as I concern, very dull, and unspectacular. Ok, that been said, I think I want to make it clear, that this is not an Intel bashing podium. I say what I say mainly to point out this limited imagination, and narrow perception of human capability is not serving mankind, and it is my intention and understanding that I should have point that out. Sometimes one just can’t believe what you’d see on a piece. This been somehow exemplary, although I have no intention to disagree on the perspective, only that I tend to think the scope of it may be off.
Let me try to explain what I mean. Anybody who is familiar with Kai Hwang’s book would know there’s a plethora of exotic design of CPUs in the early days. Heck, the dual issue IBM 360, is it S series or something which is exactly the early incarnation of hyper-threading and multi-core? The other heavy use of contemporary is pipelines. Other than these, aren’t there any other good ideas?
How about systolic, or data-flow, or the general MIMP arena? Yeah, these are all dead ideas for the time being, for various reasons, but I would be the first to balk that our imagination is limited to Intel’s innovation plan, as this piece would lead to excitement and over-joy of our collective bright future!
Given there are very good reasons why we arrive where we are today, in which this business requires very expensive investment, with a great risk, it is a very difficult business to be in. Hence, I can understand current Intel’s direction and conservatism. However, as an uncommitted Intel user, I don’t have to agree everything Intel has to sell. And would be suspicious of anyone who is leading the Intel architecture only fantasy tomorrow, which is as far as I concern, very dull, and unspectacular.
Ok, that been said, I think I want to make it clear, that this is not an Intel bashing podium. I say what I say mainly to point out this limited imagination, and narrow perception of human capability is not serving mankind, and it is my intention and understanding that I should have point that out.

]]> By: Tom Gowing http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-239 Tom Gowing Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:02:26 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-239 I think both of you have valid points. I think that argument also is based highly on who you consider to be the "user". If you consider the actual consumer to be the user, then yes, the change was highly manufacturer driven. If you consider the OEMs like HP and Dell to be the user, then you could argue that the "user" played a large role in the transition as well. The interesting thing here is that the process has been a cyclic one. CPUs hit a wall in clock speed, so they began with Hyperthreading and Multicores. This change has driven the need to change in manufacturing technology. That change has made everything much smaller, transistors especially. Now with smaller transistors, it is enabling high clock speeds again. If you take a look at our review of the CyberPowerPC at http://www.techwarelabs.com/cyberpowerpc-gamer-xtreme-si/ you can see that includes an Intel processor overclocked to about 3.7GHz, with simple liquid cooling. With more extreme cooling kits this could most likely be pushed past 4GHz. I also expect the CPUs that will be released in the near future, especially those that are of 32nm technology, to be sporting higher clocks than anything we have seen yet. A lot of what both of you have said is true. I am very excited to see what the near future will hold for CPUs. I think both of you have valid points. I think that argument also is based highly on who you consider to be the “user”. If you consider the actual consumer to be the user, then yes, the change was highly manufacturer driven. If you consider the OEMs like HP and Dell to be the user, then you could argue that the “user” played a large role in the transition as well.

The interesting thing here is that the process has been a cyclic one. CPUs hit a wall in clock speed, so they began with Hyperthreading and Multicores. This change has driven the need to change in manufacturing technology. That change has made everything much smaller, transistors especially. Now with smaller transistors, it is enabling high clock speeds again.

If you take a look at our review of the CyberPowerPC at http://www.techwarelabs.com/cyberpowerpc-gamer-xtreme-si/ you can see that includes an Intel processor overclocked to about 3.7GHz, with simple liquid cooling. With more extreme cooling kits this could most likely be pushed past 4GHz. I also expect the CPUs that will be released in the near future, especially those that are of 32nm technology, to be sporting higher clocks than anything we have seen yet.

A lot of what both of you have said is true. I am very excited to see what the near future will hold for CPUs.

]]> By: Jason Jacobs http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-238 Jason Jacobs Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:35:00 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-238 I agree with everything you have said but I see it slightly differently. The need for multi-core CPU's was a natural evolution of hyperthreading and multiprocessing which came about years before 4GHz was even a target or a reality. As a result of multiprocessing and hyperthreading software writers created programs to take advantage of multiple cpu's and thus consumers began to seek multiple CPU's in their regular machines at an affordable rate. Thus was born the dual core, and quad core CPUs and all that will follow. I agree with everything you have said but I see it slightly differently. The need for multi-core CPU’s was a natural evolution of hyperthreading and multiprocessing which came about years before 4GHz was even a target or a reality. As a result of multiprocessing and hyperthreading software writers created programs to take advantage of multiple cpu’s and thus consumers began to seek multiple CPU’s in their regular machines at an affordable rate. Thus was born the dual core, and quad core CPUs and all that will follow.

]]> By: Ahti http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Ahti Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:26:47 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-237 Hi Tom, good article. Just wanted to clear some things up. The 486 DX2 CPU, which came out a year before the first Pentium, actually sported clockspeeds of 40MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz and 100MHz. Even the first 486, launched 1989, managed 50MHz in its fastest form. Also, the general consensus amongst those in the know is that if Intel and AMD had not ran into serious power requirement and cooling issues when trying to get their CPUs to scale to 4GHz (which is incidentally why there are no 4GHz CPUs until this day), we would still be using single-core CPUs. The multi-core CPU was a way to circumnavigate the issues that came with high clockspeed while adding computational power. At first, of course, there were very few applications that could even make use of the second core, and most home users still do not run two CPU-intensive applications at the same time. So basically, the need for the multi-core CPU was not user-driven, but manufacturer-driven. What else could they have done to keep up with Moore's law, if the CPUs could not be made to work at 4GHz speeds while maintaining power and thermal envelopes that were considered sensible? Hi Tom,

good article. Just wanted to clear some things up.

The 486 DX2 CPU, which came out a year before the first Pentium, actually sported clockspeeds of 40MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz and 100MHz. Even the first 486, launched 1989, managed 50MHz in its fastest form.

Also, the general consensus amongst those in the know is that if Intel and AMD had not ran into serious power requirement and cooling issues when trying to get their CPUs to scale to 4GHz (which is incidentally why there are no 4GHz CPUs until this day), we would still be using single-core CPUs.

The multi-core CPU was a way to circumnavigate the issues that came with high clockspeed while adding computational power. At first, of course, there were very few applications that could even make use of the second core, and most home users still do not run two CPU-intensive applications at the same time.

So basically, the need for the multi-core CPU was not user-driven, but manufacturer-driven. What else could they have done to keep up with Moore’s law, if the CPUs could not be made to work at 4GHz speeds while maintaining power and thermal envelopes that were considered sensible?

]]> By: Krizzle http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-235 Krizzle Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:38:47 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-235 Spectacular! I'm your #1 Fan, Tom! Spectacular! I’m your #1 Fan, Tom!

]]> By: Tom Gowing http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Tom Gowing Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:35:36 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-234 John, I probably could have made this more clear in the article, but the 66 MHz is in reference to the first processor in the Pentium family. You are correct, there were many more processors before that with lower clock speeds. John, I probably could have made this more clear in the article, but the 66 MHz is in reference to the first processor in the Pentium family. You are correct, there were many more processors before that with lower clock speeds.

]]> By: John E http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-233 John E Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:14:33 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-233 Yea I liked it, but I beg to differ on the 66MHz being the 1st Intel CPU, because I have an Intel 33MHz CPU on my desk (Using as a paperweight), but, still a good read, Thanks. Yea I liked it, but I beg to differ on the 66MHz being the 1st Intel CPU, because I have an Intel 33MHz CPU on my desk (Using as a paperweight), but, still a good read, Thanks.

]]> By: Jason Jacobs http://www.techwarelabs.com/changing-the-game-a-brief-history-of-cpus/comment-page-1/#comment-231 Jason Jacobs Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:03:40 +0000 http://www.techwarelabs.com/?p=1730#comment-231 Nice article, excellent view on the shape of CPU and processing. What do you guys think? Nice article, excellent view on the shape of CPU and processing. What do you guys think?

]]>