Originally Posted by bacon12
I am trying to say that I don't think cpu's have advanced as much as I thought they would. Everything else has, video, memory, especially hard drives.
Intel predicted what 5ghz cpus ten years ago.
Originally Posted by ViN86
Efficiency > Speed
What Vin said. CPUs have advanced significantly in the past 5 years, the problem is that software just hasn't been able to make the adjustments.
There is a reason why the Pentium 4 was canned, and the gigahertz race ended. At 3.6 - 3.8ghz the cpus ran incredibly hot and consumed a lot of power. They simply could not go faster without increasing the reference design. Where the real kicker was that even at 4ghz a pentium M would be competitive since it was far more efficient at computing, even with a lower clock speed.
So rather than trying to keep pushing the gigahertz upwards it made more sense to use a more efficient design, and use more of them. An i7 @ 3ghz would probably be like running a 25ghz P4, the only issue is having software that fully utilizes all of the cores.
I think that Intel could release a 4ghz quad core, but then they would be hurting themselves. Remember the big debate about getting either a dual core at higher speeds, or a quad core and lower speeds. The quad core is faster if it can be used, the dual core faster if it cannot. In order to keep the multicore idea alive, they need to be able to release a faster cpu with more cores. There is an 8 core cpu now but it runs at lower clock speeds to keep it within the limitations. If Intel didn't keep increasing the core count we would be stuck back with just increasing clock speed and efficiency, and would probably hit a wall once again.