Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Processor speed, is it missing recentily?

  • 30-03-2012 9:26pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭


    Back about 10 years ago. I believed i had a decent machine operating at about 2.1ghz. Then i think celeron processors came out pushing this up to really high numbers like 4-5ghz cheaply enough.

    However celerons were rubbish from what i was told, but they had a high ghz speed.

    Today. I use a 2.6ghz i7 920..

    Where have all my ghz gone? It seems like a MASSIVE slow down occurred in growth. Its nice having a quad core etc, but when im compiling some code or using 1 program. I want it done fast as possible.

    Can anyone point me to an article that explains this slow down of growth? and why my CPU speed is the same as it was 8 years ago? (obviously im missing something)


Comments

  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Even that i7 using just one core will be much faster than a Pentium 4 at 3.8Ghz or higher. The reason being that the architecture is a lot more efficient. The i7 processor can do more than the Pentium 4 with a lower clock speed(Ghz in this case).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    theTinker wrote: »
    Back about 10 years ago. I believed i had a decent machine operating at about 2.1ghz. Then i think celeron processors came out pushing this up to really high numbers like 4-5ghz cheaply enough.

    However celerons were rubbish from what i was told, but they had a high ghz speed.

    Today. I use a 2.6ghz i7 920..

    Where have all my ghz gone? It seems like a MASSIVE slow down occurred in growth. Its nice having a quad core etc, but when im compiling some code or using 1 program. I want it done fast as possible.

    Can anyone point me to an article that explains this slow down of growth? and why my CPU speed is the same as it was 8 years ago? (obviously im missing something)

    Newer processors are more efficient and can produce more processing power from less Hertz, we could have 100ghz processors but they would be a lot bigger as well as being way more expansive to run. Would you like a laptop that lasts 5 mins on battery, or a desktop that costs €100 per hour to run.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    I take your points. I know that in a single clock cycle the new processors get more work done(well ive read that anyways).

    But where is all the speed going?


    Loading a weblogic domain takes a full minute or 2 to start up.
    Compiling java and copying files/deploying. Takes far too long.

    The biggest bottle neck i see with compiling is always the CPU maxed out.
    Does Javac use multi cores or is it just using a single core?

    When loading a program up after clicking the exec. where is the bottle neck there? (eg: a large IDE editor, or application server etc)

    I imagined 2012 being more star treky!


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Depends on the program and task really. E.g games are usually limited by the graphics card. Hard drives are a big bottleneck at the moment, moving to an SSD makes a big improvement to a system, whether it'll improve it the way you want it to is another story though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    theTinker wrote: »
    I take your points. I know that in a single clock cycle the new processors get more work done(well ive read that anyways).

    But where is all the speed going?


    Loading a weblogic domain takes a full minute or 2 to start up.
    Compiling java and copying files/deploying. Takes far too long.

    The biggest bottle neck i see with compiling is always the CPU maxed out.
    Does Javac use multi cores or is it just using a single core?

    When loading a program up after clicking the exec. where is the bottle neck there? (eg: a large IDE editor, or application server etc)

    I imagined 2012 being more star treky!

    http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6629150

    Looks like Javac is single threaded (that particular bug hasn't been closed), you won't get any extra performance from more cores when you're compiling. Post explaining sun bug states here.

    You might have answered part of your own question there. Afaik when you compile a Java project, lots of files will be compiled, created and deleted. Disk performance will suffer when doing operations on lots of little files, compared to one big file. You can see this when you copy lots of small files, and compare it to copying a single file of the same size.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭maki


    GarIT wrote: »
    Newer processors are more efficient and can produce more processing power from less Hertz, we could have 100ghz processors but they would be a lot bigger as well as being way more expansive to run.

    We really couldn't. Transistor gate length is a major limiting factor and we're approaching the upper bounds of Moore's Law. To be honest I don't think we'll ever see clock speeds over 10GHz, at least not on silicon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,835 ✭✭✭Torqay


    theTinker wrote: »
    Where have all my ghz gone?

    Your ghz are nothing but a sales pitch (back then, as they're now), compare benchmarks before you buy.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Intel had major trouble getting the Pentium 4 over 4 GHz, the heat and power consumption were just too much. After that, they began working on making processors more efficient at the same speeds and using more of them (multi-core processors).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    maki wrote: »
    We really couldn't. Transistor gate length is a major limiting factor and we're approaching the upper bounds of Moore's Law. To be honest I don't think we'll ever see clock speeds over 10GHz, at least not on silicon.

    Would it not be possible to make a processor say as big as your computer now, and just add way more transistors?


  • Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭maki


    GarIT wrote: »
    Would it not be possible to make a processor say as big as your computer now, and just add way more transistors?

    Simply adding more transistors doesn't make the chip faster. The bigger the chip, the longer the path length, the slower it gets. Not to mention something like that would be impossible to cool. It would literally just melt immediately.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    maki wrote: »
    Simply adding more transistors doesn't make the chip faster. The bigger the chip, the longer the path length, the slower it gets. Not to mention something like that would be impossible to cool. It would literally just melt immediately.

    I was under the impression more transistors would make it more powerful, that's why I do software :rolleyes: Theoretically if you kept making it bigger and adding transistors although it would get slower would the hertz not get higher? And supposing you stuck it in the cooling system in a nuclear reactor it would work. Obviously its theoretical and a mad idea.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    GarIT wrote: »
    I was under the impression more transistors would make it more powerful, that's why I do software :rolleyes: Theoretically if you kept making it bigger and adding transistors although it would get slower would the hertz not get higher? And supposing you stuck it in the cooling system in a nuclear reactor it would work. Obviously its theoretical and a mad idea.

    More transistors will make it more powerful but it won't affect the clock speed. The clock speed is the speed of the transistors whether you have 1 or a billion or a trillion. A processor that operates at 3Ghz means it's transistors are operating at 3Ghz no matter how many there are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    More transistors will make it more powerful but it won't affect the clock speed. The clock speed is the speed of the transistors whether you have 1 or a billion or a trillion. A processor that operates at 3Ghz means it's transistors are operating at 3Ghz no matter how many there are.

    That's where I was getting things wrong, I knew hertz was a measure of frequency but I thought it would be collectively, i.e. two transistors at 1hz = 2hz not 1hz.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    GarIT wrote: »
    That's where I was getting things wrong, I knew hertz was a measure of frequency but I thought it would be collectively, i.e. two transistors at 1hz = 2hz not 1hz.

    No. A 2GHz dual-core CPU is not marketed as a 4GHz CPU....despite what you'll see on eBay and the likes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    No. A 2GHz dual-core CPU is not marketed as a 4GHz CPU....despite what you'll see on eBay and the likes.

    I every even thought of that example, I was just thinking circuits from LC physics.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,988 Mod ✭✭✭✭yoyo


    No. A 2GHz dual-core CPU is not marketed as a 4GHz CPU....despite what you'll see on eBay and the likes.

    Do people really market CPUs like that on ebay :eek::eek: . Looks like I have a 9.4Ghz CPU so :P:P :pac: .

    Nick


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭PseudoFamous


    yoyo wrote: »
    Do people really market CPUs like that on ebay :eek::eek: . Looks like I have a 9.4Ghz CPU so :P:P :pac: .

    Nick

    Sit the hell down, my 2500K is running at 17.2gHz >_>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,835 ✭✭✭Torqay


    yoyo wrote: »
    Do people really market CPUs like that on ebay :eek::eek: . Looks like I have a 9.4Ghz CPU so :P:P :pac: .

    Nick

    Looks like that's not enough to calculate the speed properly... 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 :p


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 10,988 Mod ✭✭✭✭yoyo


    Torqay wrote: »
    Looks like that's not enough to calculate the speed properly... 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 :p

    Small typo I swear :P:pac:

    Nick


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    OP here.

    As i continue to read about this stuff today. It seems that processors have obviously become alot more efficent and performance outputting. However, It seems software has expanded hugely to use the resources.

    It also seems the last couple of years. Hardware has grown alot faster than software needs. So overall, things are faster, but just not by a huge amount that you'd notice.
    Most applications fail to use multi processors effectively so the hardware resources are left to waste.

    With the advent of Ivy bridge. It seems a big reduction in power consumption, which i believe will reduce heat output.
    Q: Will this reduction in heat output on ivy bridge allow processors to once again start increasing thier speed in a way similar to before?

    I think we're still a 4-5 years off the types of speeds I was hoping for.
    (weblogic in a couple of seconds, a full build of a project in 20-30 seconds).

    It also seems that my might i7 920 2.7ghz, is already fairly outdated. Althought not much ghz is labeled on other new models, it seems the new models already output better performance.
    So perhaps its time for a upgrade again

    For a build machine though, Im thinking faster quad core > slower 6 core unless software gets alot more multithreaded capable fast.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    theTinker wrote: »
    OP here.

    As i continue to read about this stuff today. It seems that processors have obviously become alot more efficent and performance outputting. However, It seems software has expanded hugely to use the resources.

    It also seems the last couple of years. Hardware has grown alot faster than software needs. So overall, things are faster, but just not by a huge amount that you'd notice.
    This has always been the case. Windows XP would run like a rocket on current hardware, just as Windows 95 would if you put it on a Pentium III.
    theTinker wrote: »
    For a build machine though, Im thinking faster quad core > slower 6 core unless software gets alot more multithreaded capable fast.

    This can be true. The performance differential between the Core i5 2500k and i7 2600k can be insignificant in some applications.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭PseudoFamous


    theTinker wrote: »
    Q: Will this reduction in heat output on ivy bridge allow processors to once again start increasing thier speed in a way similar to before?

    What do you mean? My 2500K is running at 4.3GHz at the minute, and I haven't even bothered pushing it to the limit yet. There's also at least one person running the same chip on 5GHz on the PC Building & Upgrading forum, without major overvolting, IIRC. Is that not high enough yet?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    What do you mean? My 2500K is running at 4.3GHz at the minute, and I haven't even bothered pushing it to the limit yet. There's also at least one person running the same chip on 5GHz on the PC Building & Upgrading forum, without major overvolting, IIRC. Is that not high enough yet?

    I wasnt looking into overclocking. Its for new PCs in work that im thinking of, and we dont OC in work due. Everything usually has to be stock stuff and stable to the nth degree.

    I was looking at the 3930k processor. Hopefully it comes down in price a little but it seems easily able to OC to 4.3ghz without any issues. Thats 6 cores of that.
    Perhaps that processor will offer the speed im looking for.

    my 2.7ghx i7 920 seems like a childs toy in comparison to it.

    Cheers for all the info guys. Been a good saturday brush up on the new tech out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Tea_Bag


    why go splashing out on a very expensive six core when your code is being compiled on a single thread?

    fwiw, If you want to send me some code that you've timed on your rig for how long it takes to compile, ill run it from an SSD on an i5 2500K @5Ghz and you can compare times to weigh up the pros and cons of an upgrade.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    why go splashing out on a very expensive six core when your code is being compiled on a single thread?

    fwiw, If you want to send me some code that you've timed on your rig for how long it takes to compile, ill run it from an SSD on an i5 2500K @5Ghz and you can compare times to weigh up the pros and cons of an upgrade.

    I couldnt imagine a quicker way for me to lose my job :)
    But thank you for the good intentioned offer!

    Im going to do some search now for information on compiling code in multiple threads. Im not sure if it can be done, but perhaps the javac can be tamed in some way!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Tea_Bag


    ah well if you'd prefer some open source material, I'd be indifferent to what I'm actually compiling ;)

    if you find a good way to thread javac keep us updated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    theTinker wrote: »
    I couldnt imagine a quicker way for me to lose my job :)
    But thank you for the good intentioned offer!

    Im going to do some search now for information on compiling code in multiple threads. Im not sure if it can be done, but perhaps the javac can be tamed in some way!

    I think the Java compiler in Eclipse is multithreaded, according to this anyways.

    Try your current setup and time a specific projects time to compile. Get Eclipse, import that project into it and see if there's a difference.


Advertisement