Next-Generation DDR4 Memory to Reach 4.266GHz - Report

[News]

More...

[bacon12]

Awesome, so I wonder when or if cpus will ever reach the clock speeds to match everything else. ie Stock @4.5

[ViN86]

Efficiency > Speed

[darkrider01]

Originally Posted by bacon12

Awesome, so I wonder when or if cpus will ever reach the clock speeds to match everything else. ie Stock @4.5

....revealed that the target effective clock-speeds for DDR4 memory would be 2133MHz - 4266MHz....

Effective clock speed means that the modules themselves would be running at something like 333-667 MHz. Still not close to CPU speeds.

[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.

[Bman212121]

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.

[ViN86]

Yea this is why my dual core E8400 at 3.6GHz get's murdered by Athlon X4's at about 2GHz in Bad Company 2. The game is very thread hungry.

[bacon12]

Not really Vin, the dolby audio runs on a 3rd core if available if not it pwns dual cores. Kinda sad if you have a dual core and a nice sound card its still runs like crap.

You guys are still missing my point. I understand cpus are much more efficient than 5+ years ago. Imagine how much faster they would be if they were by default running at higher clocks. I know they would require more power and produce more heat, but the clock speeds would be there when you needed it and you reached anything above %70 load.

There is a reason why intel has extreme cpus that are $1000. They will do 5ghz easily I think intel is holding back, I guess there really isn't much of a market and the average consumer is happy with the speeds they get.

I also realize its gonna take 10 or more years for most software to take advantage of the mulit threads of an i7 much less a 6 or 8 core cpu.