Register to reply

Will CPU stock clock speeds ever exceed 4.0 GHz?

by The_Absolute
Tags: clock, exceed, speeds, stock
Share this thread:
The_Absolute
#19
Oct16-08, 08:42 PM
P: 182
What about the NVidia "Tesla" GPU. I've heard about it but know absolutely nothing about it.
Crysis_Runner
#20
Oct11-09, 10:51 AM
P: 1
I realise this is almost a year later now, but im running about 4.2Ghz on an Intel Wolfdale 3.33Ghz Core 2 Duo, im expecting to get it much higher once I encorporate liquid cooling into it, just aswell, my GPU's memory is running at 3.6Gbs (900Mhz) which I havent over clocked yet, my core clock is running at 850Mhz with 800 Streaming Processing Units, if you wanna take a loot at it, its called the XFX HD-489X-ZSFC Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card. Also, if you guys want to look at some very incredible technology, go onto Apple's website and build a MacPro with maxed out GPUs and CPUs, it runs 2 Intel Xeon Nehalem Quad Cores each at about 3.33Ghz stock, so if you think about it, you can easily OverClock them to about 4.1Ghz a piece, so your total processing power is running at 8.2Ghz/ or 4.1Ghz on 8 cores, aswell as 4 GPUs max, to take care of any graphic situation you could possibly throw at it, all in all, if you max this machine out, it costs about $13,000.
B. Elliott
#21
Oct14-09, 07:42 AM
B. Elliott's Avatar
P: 399
Quote Quote by The_Absolute View Post
And how come GPU's are dwarfing the computing power of CPU's?
Because of the high number of stream processors. Think of a stream processor as a tiny, simple CPU for your video card except that there's over 100 of them. (240 in the 285GTX). When it comes to performing simple math (which drawing shapes for video games really is anyway), nothing beats stream processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing

4. I was told that having multiple graphics cards (SLI) doesn't give you more graphics muscle in "99%" of all applications. Which applications partially/fully utilize multi-GPU's? I'm guessing that running extremely performance demanding programs like the video game "Crysis" on it's maximum settings would call for more GPU's? Will the GTX 280 do the job?
SLI definitely gives you more 'muscle' in quite a few apps. No doubt more than just 1%. For example, SETI@home and other UC Berkeley BIONIC apps utilize SLI for number crunching. When it comes to PC games, even though I don't like to freely throw around percentages, i'd say closer to 20% of the games out there utilize SLI. A 280 GTX is just about the second fastest single GPU solution video card under the 285 GTX. It will do the job nicely.

5. How does the computational power of the human brain compare to today's fastest supercomputers? If the worlds fastest computers dwarf the human mind, then is it possible for there to be a super-AI that completely rivals all human thought and intellect? Alledgedly, the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe. (I don't know if that is true).
No clue.

6. I've heard about a chip that was invented as part of a highly classified government project that has the power of 100,000 CRAY-5 supercomputers, and that there is a massive underground bunker full of racks and racks of these chips running in tandem for as far as the eye can see. (I can't imagine what they are used for) maybe trying to set a new Crysis benchmark (lol!) is this true? How powerful is a CRAY-5?
I've never heard anything about this.

7. What will computers, especially personal computers be like in the year 2050-2100 by your approximate?
The way computer technology changes, there's honestly no way to predict it. I can tell you this though; Whatever prediction someone makes about the far future as far as computer technology is concerned, they will be way off.

8. How much more powerful is a NVidia GeForce GTX 280 over an ATI Radeon X-800 Pro (my old card on my now broken PC) Oh, and NVidia is coming out with the GeForce GTX 350, which uses 2GBs of GDDR5 RAM with a single core.
A 280 GTX is faster than an X800 by at least an order of magnitude! lol. An X800 is somewhat comparable in performance to an X1650. Which is again comparable to Nvidias 7600GS. A major slouch compared to the current 2xx series.
Negatron
#22
Oct14-09, 12:56 PM
P: 58
Quote Quote by turbo-1 View Post
With RISC programming and faster chips (with on-chip memory control) it could be time for another revolution in PCs. Intel's Core i7 CPU with fast-bus access to RAM could revolutionize PC performance, if we get RISC - friendly OSs and applications. Very
The i7 is by no definition a RISC processor, even modern "RISC" processors themselves are difficult to qualify as such. The reality is, there is no longer a CISC/RISC disctinction between processors, merely somewhat different philosophies, neither of which can be said to be reduced.

As for revolutionizing performance, if CPUs are to accomplish this they would need to become GPUs, which is somewhat superfluous.
sciadvisor
#23
Aug9-10, 08:09 PM
P: 2
I saw this question

"5. How does the computational power of the human brain compare to today's fastest supercomputers? If the worlds fastest computers dwarf the human mind, then is it possible for there to be a super-AI that completely rivals all human thought and intellect? Alledgedly, the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe. (I don't know if that is true)."

I was recently discussing this question with some of my colleagues. See, there is a great misconception here. The human brain does not operate the same way as computers so the performance cannot be compared easily. Computers are great at doing repetitive tasks especially floating point arithmetic. That is what they excel at. Human brains are significantly more powerful than computers in many other areas. Even less intelligent animals such as dogs and cats are significantly more powerful than computers and supercomputers at many different tasks. For example, computers are at least 100 years away (assuming they ever get there) from processing reality and understanding dimensional space. When a human or even a dog walks into a room, you can make sense and understand all objects in the room, you can immediately recognize what the shortest path to a point in the room is and how to get there. You immediately know the shape, the color, the texture of objects, etc. If, say, a table was missing a leg, you would know for a fact that is a table that is missing one leg. You know this information almost instantly. A modern supercomputer would require hours to recognize these patterns and process them to figure out what objects these are. There is simply no comparison between a computer and a human here. Another example is, say, your friend is singing a song out of tune but he has almost all the lyrics correct. If you know the song and you have heard it before, you can immediately tell the artist and the title of the song. You can even correct your friend so that he sings in the right tune. This would be an almost impossible task for a modern computer to accomplish within a reasonable time. Again, computers are great at many things but their power and capability cannot be compared to the power of the human brain. In the future, perhaps. However, there is a school of thought that claims that there is an non-computable aspect to the human brain. As such, no computer will ever be comparable. Of course, this is open for debate and AI research is divided into the schools of thought.

As far as the human brain being the most complex object in the known universe, there is no way to be sure of that now. There might be ET civilizations out there whose minds are much more complex and capable of so much more. Our civilization is still in its infancy and our understanding is still very limited. But we are learning...
Negatron
#24
Aug10-10, 10:39 AM
P: 58
Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
The human brain does not operate the same way as computers so the performance cannot be compared easily.
Not easily but it can be compared. Creating several levels of abstraction the computational requirements to run the abstraction can be determined.

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__dat...map-report.pdf

The unknown element is which level of abstraction can properly describe a functional brain. Something between spiking networks and Hodgkin Huxley neurons is most probable, which gives an estimation of upwards of 10s of Petaflops and ~Exaflop of memory. Building large scale systems with various approaches will ultimately produce the proper model.

Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
Computers are great at doing repetitive tasks especially floating point arithmetic. That is what they excel at. Human brains are significantly more powerful than computers in many other areas.
Computers are good at executing computable functions, "repetitive tasks" and "floating point" have nothing to do with computation theory, these are amongst the many of an infinitude of applications for universal logic. The only possible way for a brain to not be computable is if it is a non-causal or "illogical" system, and there isn't the faintest clue that the brain, or any physical system, is in such a category.

Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
Again, computers are great at many things but their power and capability cannot be compared to the power of the human brain.
Their power and capability is very often compared to that of a human brain, whether in market prediction, operating a power grid, pattern recognition or general bayesian inference. It's the 21st century, there is no more room in science for metaphysical mysticism. The brain is a system which can be analyzed, mimicked and compared like any other.

Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
there is a school of thought that claims that there is an non-computable aspect to the human brain.
It's a school of something perhaps, but not thought.

Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
As far as the human brain being the most complex object in the known universe, there is no way to be sure of that now.
If you have ever seen GNU OS source code you will have no doubt what is the most complex object in the known universe.
sciadvisor
#25
Aug10-10, 11:02 AM
P: 2
I was simply referring to the complexity of tasks and cited a simple example. My post was not intended as a description of the theory of computation. Of course, there is more to it than floating point.

As far as the schools of thought on AI regarding the non-computable aspect of the human brain. There are serious scientists, all of them widely regarded as leading scientists in their field, who claim and firmly believe that there is a non-computable aspect to the human brain and to consciousness. My post was not intended to take any sides either. There are arguments for and there are arguments against this point of view.

I was not familiar with the document you linked in your post. Very interesting. I will read it. Thank you.
Negatron
#26
Aug10-10, 11:48 AM
P: 58
Quote Quote by sciadvisor View Post
There are serious scientists, all of them widely regarded as leading scientists in their field, who claim and firmly believe that there is a non-computable aspect to the human brain
Scientists are not invulnerable to saying incredibly stupid things and holding the most unreasonable of misconceptions. An idea only holds as much weight as it's basis, regardless to who it might belong. If god himself said it I would demand a coherent explanation just the same. I'm keen on seeing someone make this claim followed by a thorough explanation of the process which led to this conclusion. From all prior experience however this claim and thorough explanations have been mutually exclusive.
Dryerasethis
#27
Sep6-10, 12:51 PM
P: 4
Quote Quote by The_Absolute View Post
I have a few more PC questions to ask.
6. I've heard about a chip that was invented as part of a highly classified government project that has the power of 100,000 CRAY-5 supercomputers, and that there is a massive underground bunker full of racks and racks of these chips running in tandem for as far as the eye can see. (I can't imagine what they are used for) maybe trying to set a new Crysis benchmark (lol!) is this true? How powerful is a CRAY-5?
The materials and manufacturing for something like this would not go unnoticed in the commercial market. It would be too hard to keep secret, unless the 'government' also had their own underground silicon mine, manufacturing facilities, the proper amount of trusty people to run all these, and the programmers to properly divide the workload of whatever the 'eff they are trying to calculate, I do not see this being feasible while retaining the conspiracy theory level of secrecy.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Proving E must exceed the min potential Introductory Physics Homework 2
Nothing can exceed the speed of light Special & General Relativity 4
A moving clock lags behind a stationary clock Special & General Relativity 2
How to Exceed The Velocity Of Light 2 General Physics 1
How To Exceed The Velocity Of Light 2 General Physics 9