I got a 10 gigahertz processor in my garage. I powered it up with a liquid nitro blast. Then I hooked up my cybercore xl79, maxed it out with a mega jolt caffine power generator, poured some cyber juice over it. Hooked it through that all important superflux capacitor until it delivered that super gigahertz power punch.
My computer buddies at MIT no longer want anything to do with me, but as they say it's rather lonely at the top.
I personally have a Sandy Bridge Processor at 4.7Ghz, and it is insanly powerful, compared to when I started. However with existing Silicon/Copper and heavy/rare metal based chips we use right now I doubt much higher clockrates can be achieved, Just more efficient archetechture. Processors need a revolutionary turning point to advance any further in Clockratesm, we have not yet discovered this and "More's Law" is expected to fail in 3 - 4 years.
I am a Physics/ Chem Student, and I have learnt a lot, Overclocking is a huge hobby, Intel and AMD both realised it is Physically imposible to produce a stock cpu over 4Ghz, and its been like this since about 2004. The Problem is 1. Heat and 2. data stability, the higher clockrate means that the entire system is more susseptible to disturbances and interferance and data loss, and also the incredible heat, is disipated over something the size of a 1 dollar coin, we are talking over 100W.
we do have 10 GHz CPU's! in a way because a 2.4 GHZ quad core is about 10 GHZ if you put all the cores together.. so we actually have CPU's that run past 10 GHZ
like the i7's 6 cores run at max 4.2 GHz id say and x by 6 so like 25 GHz
@gamer1337omg not quite, but you are almost there. In a multi-core CPU, each core is seperate from the others. Yes, they will share certain tasks, but each CPU can work independently of the other. Each of your cores is running 3.4 ghz, but they will not have a combined clock speed. Hope that clears it up for you, and thanks for the comment.
The reason is because of heat, and they make different graphics cards so you would no longer need a great CPU. One other thing they need to start doing is making Cell Processors, the ones running in the Playstation 3 and a few supercomputers. It all goes more cores, like you said.
2nd cmt: Intel has a virtual monopoly on CPUs, and they have stated they invest 10 years into new materials, so they are not interested in working with diamond wafers, since they have no competition, and wouldn't you like to keep making billions from a fixed amount of money already spent in R&D? They want to milk old technology for as long as they can, but I am working with some brilliant people to dethrone these old kings in crumbling castles...
@martydrooo very good points. I agree on paper superprocessors can be built. Putting theory into reality is harder then it sounds though. I do also agree about intel milking old technology. I'm about as antintel as they come (at least to the way they do business, not always their products)I am curious as to what ur working on. Would u be interested in doing an article 4 novatechlive? Or even make a video for the youtube channel on it? It could help promote what ur doing? PM if ur interested.
the only thing they need to do is sell more dou core processers when you buy them and get a dual core MTB
and you could overclock it alot better. its just that noone really wants to do this yet for some reason. less heat yay still 4 cores with HT
shock the system witch would be 3.33 ghz duo core prossesors and over clock to 4.33 see how it runs then do further testing. obviousyly they cant figgure out this design they use, is with flaws.
1.) Moore's law says the number of transistors on a chip double every 2 years, not 18 months, I don't know who originally misquoted the statement, but a lot of people say 18 months.
2.) Theoretical 96Ghz processors exist. By theoretical I do not mean just on paper, there have been materials tests done, and so on. Silicon is an ancient material, boron doped diamond wafers (from synthesized diamonds) operate at speeds silicon melts at.
@Flightkid9 and to do that there will need to be some new discoveries in materials, and manufacturing methods to do this, also, they will need to create new cooling techniques or else make CPU's that don't produce the immense heat they do today, neither of which I believe we will have for at least 10 years. But hey, who knows what NASA's got hidden away?
@Flightkid9 hahahaha god only knows. It has to happen at some point what with the invention of quantum computers that use atoms to compute rather then silocan. One theory is that when we are able to get computers running off of billions upon billions of atoms, they will rival the human brains computing power. I believe that qualifies as "past the 10 Ghz block" lol
@NovaTechLive lol yes, that's what I think too, but until then, I think we'll be limited to probably 6 ghz, once we figure out how to make atom processors, than we will see speeds we can only dream of right now, and that day can't come soon enough :)
I don't think we'll surpass the 10Ghz mark for at least another 10 years, right now, companies wan't more cores, they aren't aiming for super high clock speeds right now, once we have 10 and 20 core CPU's on the mainstream market that don't cost the same as a small car that the regular consumer can afford, than the companies will start working more towards clock speed, also, it will take serious advances in technology to be able to make CPU's with that many cores and high clock speed,
Nice video, but one thing that you left out was reliability. CPUs are kind of like car engines, if you think of a car you can put say a turbo onto the engine to give you more HP or feed it more fuel but this will make it make it unreliable or have a shorter life span. Same thing goes for a CPU, you can feed it more volts etc but that will shorten its life span even if it is cooled by some ridiculously cold method.
@samstar1412 So unless they can come up some sort of CPU that can run say 3volts on the vcore 24/7 without running hot or shortening its life, I don't think we will see 10ghz CPU's. Well not on mainstream CPUs anyway.
@samstar1412 that is a very good point that I didn't really talk about cause it has more to do with overclocking. I was talking stock speeds, with regular technology. Thanks for posting this though
I got a 10 gigahertz processor in my garage. I powered it up with a liquid nitro blast. Then I hooked up my cybercore xl79, maxed it out with a mega jolt caffine power generator, poured some cyber juice over it. Hooked it through that all important superflux capacitor until it delivered that super gigahertz power punch.
My computer buddies at MIT no longer want anything to do with me, but as they say it's rather lonely at the top.
jaymorpheus11 1 week ago
I have a 12 core 4.8 ghz processor ^^
persio1 1 month ago
i got a 4.6 ghz processor
jashelps 4 months ago
I personally have a Sandy Bridge Processor at 4.7Ghz, and it is insanly powerful, compared to when I started. However with existing Silicon/Copper and heavy/rare metal based chips we use right now I doubt much higher clockrates can be achieved, Just more efficient archetechture. Processors need a revolutionary turning point to advance any further in Clockratesm, we have not yet discovered this and "More's Law" is expected to fail in 3 - 4 years.
ncnhomegrown 4 months ago
I am a Physics/ Chem Student, and I have learnt a lot, Overclocking is a huge hobby, Intel and AMD both realised it is Physically imposible to produce a stock cpu over 4Ghz, and its been like this since about 2004. The Problem is 1. Heat and 2. data stability, the higher clockrate means that the entire system is more susseptible to disturbances and interferance and data loss, and also the incredible heat, is disipated over something the size of a 1 dollar coin, we are talking over 100W.
ncnhomegrown 4 months ago
sounds like were gonna need server motherboards with like 3 hexcore 4ghz cpu's
BroknSircut 6 months ago
@BroknSircut Intel actually just released a CPU that can come stock 4Ghz, though I like the way you think.
NovaTechLive 6 months ago
@NovaTechLive wow 4ghz eh, not too shabby. But how's the price. Lol guessing not even close to amd's cpu price range that's for sure.
BroknSircut 6 months ago
@BroknSircut You are correct, for the money you pay you could probably get a hexacore AMD CPU+mid range graphics card.
NovaTechLive 6 months ago
@gamer1337omg not really you just have 4 cores running 3.4 GHz thats it
Ducksongstoned 9 months ago
we do have 10 GHz CPU's! in a way because a 2.4 GHZ quad core is about 10 GHZ if you put all the cores together.. so we actually have CPU's that run past 10 GHZ
like the i7's 6 cores run at max 4.2 GHz id say and x by 6 so like 25 GHz
tigersims08 10 months ago
@gamer1337omg not quite, but you are almost there. In a multi-core CPU, each core is seperate from the others. Yes, they will share certain tasks, but each CPU can work independently of the other. Each of your cores is running 3.4 ghz, but they will not have a combined clock speed. Hope that clears it up for you, and thanks for the comment.
NovaTechLive 11 months ago
Great video by the way :D
jpmac098 1 year ago
The reason is because of heat, and they make different graphics cards so you would no longer need a great CPU. One other thing they need to start doing is making Cell Processors, the ones running in the Playstation 3 and a few supercomputers. It all goes more cores, like you said.
jpmac098 1 year ago
100 cores TILIERA-GX
tmbronx 1 year ago
Comment removed
tmbronx 1 year ago
2nd cmt: Intel has a virtual monopoly on CPUs, and they have stated they invest 10 years into new materials, so they are not interested in working with diamond wafers, since they have no competition, and wouldn't you like to keep making billions from a fixed amount of money already spent in R&D? They want to milk old technology for as long as they can, but I am working with some brilliant people to dethrone these old kings in crumbling castles...
martydrooo 1 year ago
@martydrooo very good points. I agree on paper superprocessors can be built. Putting theory into reality is harder then it sounds though. I do also agree about intel milking old technology. I'm about as antintel as they come (at least to the way they do business, not always their products)I am curious as to what ur working on. Would u be interested in doing an article 4 novatechlive? Or even make a video for the youtube channel on it? It could help promote what ur doing? PM if ur interested.
NovaTechLive 1 year ago
dude sorry you see it that way...
the only thing they need to do is sell more dou core processers when you buy them and get a dual core MTB
and you could overclock it alot better. its just that noone really wants to do this yet for some reason. less heat yay still 4 cores with HT
shock the system witch would be 3.33 ghz duo core prossesors and over clock to 4.33 see how it runs then do further testing. obviousyly they cant figgure out this design they use, is with flaws.
rickdog8234 1 year ago
Hey lil buddy. Few comments...
1.) Moore's law says the number of transistors on a chip double every 2 years, not 18 months, I don't know who originally misquoted the statement, but a lot of people say 18 months.
2.) Theoretical 96Ghz processors exist. By theoretical I do not mean just on paper, there have been materials tests done, and so on. Silicon is an ancient material, boron doped diamond wafers (from synthesized diamonds) operate at speeds silicon melts at.
martydrooo 1 year ago
interesting vids man, keep em up! subbed :]
VioletMould 1 year ago
@VioletMould thanks for the comment. More vids coming next week. Finishing high school finals tomorrow!
NovaTechLive 1 year ago
@Flightkid9 and to do that there will need to be some new discoveries in materials, and manufacturing methods to do this, also, they will need to create new cooling techniques or else make CPU's that don't produce the immense heat they do today, neither of which I believe we will have for at least 10 years. But hey, who knows what NASA's got hidden away?
Flightkid9 1 year ago
@Flightkid9 hahahaha god only knows. It has to happen at some point what with the invention of quantum computers that use atoms to compute rather then silocan. One theory is that when we are able to get computers running off of billions upon billions of atoms, they will rival the human brains computing power. I believe that qualifies as "past the 10 Ghz block" lol
NovaTechLive 1 year ago
@NovaTechLive lol yes, that's what I think too, but until then, I think we'll be limited to probably 6 ghz, once we figure out how to make atom processors, than we will see speeds we can only dream of right now, and that day can't come soon enough :)
Flightkid9 1 year ago
I don't think we'll surpass the 10Ghz mark for at least another 10 years, right now, companies wan't more cores, they aren't aiming for super high clock speeds right now, once we have 10 and 20 core CPU's on the mainstream market that don't cost the same as a small car that the regular consumer can afford, than the companies will start working more towards clock speed, also, it will take serious advances in technology to be able to make CPU's with that many cores and high clock speed,
Flightkid9 1 year ago
Nice video, but one thing that you left out was reliability. CPUs are kind of like car engines, if you think of a car you can put say a turbo onto the engine to give you more HP or feed it more fuel but this will make it make it unreliable or have a shorter life span. Same thing goes for a CPU, you can feed it more volts etc but that will shorten its life span even if it is cooled by some ridiculously cold method.
samstar1412 1 year ago
@samstar1412 So unless they can come up some sort of CPU that can run say 3volts on the vcore 24/7 without running hot or shortening its life, I don't think we will see 10ghz CPU's. Well not on mainstream CPUs anyway.
samstar1412 1 year ago
@samstar1412 that is a very good point that I didn't really talk about cause it has more to do with overclocking. I was talking stock speeds, with regular technology. Thanks for posting this though
NovaTechLive 1 year ago