Consumer PCs have long abandoned the multi-GHz race for core count and NPU inflation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Isnt it that at some point the GHz just aren't useful anymore or rather not physically possible. I think they abandoned it for a good reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    You get rate limited by cache. The literal physical distance between cache(3) (tiny ram(s) in the processor) and processor can't be zero. So those signals must travel over a distance at the speed of conduction. Having multiple processors allows tasks to be done simultaneously, effectively multiplying processing speed.

    But more speed is particularly useful with bad/legacy software(single thread). SolidWorks is a good example.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    I think there are two parts to this. There are factors beyond clock rate; clock rate alone doesn't give a full picture. Going from say 166 MHz to 1 GHz brings radical performance improvements without too many drawbacks, once you go above 3-4 GHz, the marginal increase in clock rates becomes increasingly expensive in terms of heat management.

    EDIT: Didn't realize there was difference between mHz and MHz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Watch out for your prefixes, 166 mHz would be one operation every 6 seconds.
    I don't think there ever has been a CPU that slow ;-)

    (small letter "g" doesn't exist as a prefix, but could be easily confused as the unit gram-Hertz)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I once made an incredibly limited cpu on paper, basically had the whole cpu in logic gate on a piece of paper. Tried to run the most basic programm on it by hand and i can assure you thet it was much slower than 166mhz XD

  • source
  • parent