0

Somewhere during browsing on Internet I have seen that

Intel Pentium 4th generation was made for a high operating clock frequency of around 10GHz, but the researchers can operate it only for a time period of 30sec to 1min because of the vast power dissipation at such high frequency. So they restricted it to around 3 to 4GHz

Is this true. Does the Pentium 4th generation technology was improved later so that it can operate at such a high frequency i.e., technologies having lower power dissipation have come so that we can have a processor at 10GHz

EDIT Due to the misconception on the question and thinking it as a duplicate(Sorry for my poor English if it is not conveying what I am actually thinking)

What I actually asked is whether the above quote is true i.e, any evidence and if so any research work was done from then in such area...

I knew that clock speed is highly constrained by power dissipation and clock speed almost remained flat in the present decade Ref: http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/clock_frequency

I already gone through the question Maximum clock frequency of microprocessors at the time of posing my question

Community
  • 1
sai kiran grandhi
  • 184
  • 1
  • 2
  • 10
  • 2
    Why don't they release it? Are you looking for additional justification besides "the thing only works for up to a minute"? – Kaz Nov 20 '13 at 07:07
  • Not sure how reliable this site is but it appears 8.5GHz overclocking has been achieved using more recent chips by enthusiasts http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php - no doubt as Kaz pointed out very briefly which doesn't have much practical purpose. – PeterJ Nov 20 '13 at 07:42
  • Possible duplicate of: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/76580/25469 – Vasiliy Nov 20 '13 at 08:57
  • 1
    Isn't this something that anyone who is not an Intel insider will essentially just speculate about? Voting to close this question as primarily opinion-based. – Anindo Ghosh Nov 20 '13 at 09:05
  • 1
    @AnindoGhosh, the information is freely available on the net - the standard speeds of the processors vs. the overclocking records. No need to be Intel insider in order to understand the factors which cause manufacturers to lower clock frequencies. I think this question is fine and is directly related to electronics. Also, not that much space for opinion based answer. – Vasiliy Nov 20 '13 at 09:13
  • @Kaz What I mean is may be at that time of Pentium4 release the cooling procedures were not upto the requirement. Why not later they take this point into consideration in the subsequent releases or in research. As increase in clock speed has a direct impact on the performance of the processor for the same architecture – sai kiran grandhi Nov 20 '13 at 10:13
  • @Kaz I didn't ask why don't they release it? Whether the above quote is true any evidence and if so any research work was done from then in such area... – sai kiran grandhi Nov 20 '13 at 10:17
  • 1
    @saikirangrandhi, liquid nitrogen (−196°C odd) was first produced over 100 years ago. Cooling things is pretty much 'old tech' and probably one area where no doubt at the cutting edge achievements have been made, but not so much for practical PC cooling systems I'd guess. – PeterJ Nov 20 '13 at 10:55
  • @Vasiliy Referring to OP's further comment, "*Why not later they take this point into consideration in the subsequent releases or in research.*", if determining why Intel took some internal decisions is not opinion-based for a non-Intel person, I certainly have a different understanding of the term "opinion based". – Anindo Ghosh Nov 20 '13 at 11:34
  • @saikirangrandhi Without a doubt, Intel are working their asses off to crank up clock rates, cram more transistors onto a die, and reduce wattage, and their new work will do whatever they were able based on whatever they learned from prior work. Without a doubt, chips can be overclocked to go faster, which heats them up. Whether the Intel people went to a specific clock rate, for a specific time limit, with a specific architecture, would require someone from Intel to confirm it, which likely won't happen. – Kaz Nov 20 '13 at 17:09

2 Answers2

3

Intel Pentium 4 ... 10GHz ... Is this true?

It is true that Intel, in 2000, thought they could achieve this. Intel were wrong.

In 2000 Intel were reported as saying

Researchers have achieved a significant breakthrough by building the world's smallest and fastest CMOS transistor. This breakthrough will allow Intel within the next five to 10 years to build microprocessors containing more than 400 million transistors, running at 10 gigahertz (10 billion cycles per second) and operating at less than 1 V

That clearly didn't happen.

It isn't entirely clear whether the above is a quote or a paraphrasing of Intel material. Direct quotations were less specific, numerically.

"This breakthrough will allow Intel to continue increasing the performance and reducing the cost of microprocessors well into the future," said Dr. Sunlin Chou, vice president and general manager of Intel's Technology and Manufacturing Group.

Wikipedia says

Intel claimed that NetBurst would allow clock speeds of up to 10 GHz, however, severe problems with heat dissipation (especially with the Prescott Pentium 4) limited CPU clock speeds to a much lower 3.8 GHz.

Wikipedia cites The greatest tech U-Turns of all time: Intel and Netburst

Intel claimed an eventual target clock speed of 10GHz was possible as the design matured.

Alas, it wasn't to be. As clock speeds increased, the company was unable to keep on top of power consumption, which rose proportionally. By the time the last Pentium 4 CPUs with 3.8GHz clock speeds came onto the market, they were consuming up to 130W of power.

That created a huge heat problem and led to horribly noisy PCs, with fans running at full speed almost permanently. Intel simply couldn't manage to design a model with a clock speed higher than 3.8GHz - the power consumption was too great.

It was forced to abandon NetBurst, and in 2006 - after a frantic 18-month about-face behind the scenes - it revealed the Core microarchitecture.

Community
  • 1
RedGrittyBrick
  • 14,602
  • 5
  • 37
  • 77
2

I think this question is the exact duplicate of this one, however, due to very negative community reaction to the formulation of this question (the other one has been heavily upvoted) I decided to post an answer.

The following seems very strange to someone not familiar with heat-dissipation issues: today's technologies allow for clock speeds above 10GHz, but still most CPUs operate at 3-4 GHz. Sounds like a waste of opportunity.

No, it isn't. As I explained in the answer to the duplicate question, the manufacturers do not push clock frequencies to their limits because it will require very costly solutions for dissipation of the heat produced by the chip.

Therefore, the answer to your question is that clock frequencies will remain in the range of 3-4 GHz (maybe 5GHz in some cases) in next generations too, unless there will be some major engineering breakthrough.

Community
  • 1
Vasiliy
  • 7,323
  • 2
  • 21
  • 38
  • 1
    This answer persuades me that the Q is effectively a duplicate of an existing one (or at least, exactly the same answer applies - so it can be considered a duplicate) – RedGrittyBrick Nov 20 '13 at 10:34
  • @RedGrittyBrick The question appears to be duplicate because the answer made it duplicate as the same person answered it in the same words but actually the question is not at all a duplicate – sai kiran grandhi Nov 20 '13 at 11:00
  • @saikirangrandhi, even after you edited the question I can't see why is it not a duplicate. You are asking about whether state of the art process technology (Intel's 22 nm) allows for 10GHz clock frequency, and if it is, then will future processors make use of this capability, right? – Vasiliy Nov 20 '13 at 11:46