Anyone up for an 81GHz CPU?
 

http://www.eetimes.com/at/hpm/news/OEG20030822S0005

All I got to say about that is "&%^*$%(@#&)$@%%(*%^^*(#%^)@$ ING HELL!!!"

Put my name down for one of those!

But do you know what's scariest about the materials they're using? They're actually cheaper than silicon!!!

Who knew tech would increase in speed that much in such a short amount of time...

omg. yeah yeah. put me down for one of those too.

and it's cheaper? wow! thanks for the interesting read.

You know... a friend of mine was talking about such a thing in the world of digital cameras too. They supposedly already have a cheaper, better fotocel or whatever (sorry I don't know anything about cameras) ready only because it would devastate the market (all the old models would be obsolete almost immediately) nobody is releasing it. They're just waiting and slowely increasing the quality so they can continue to sell their old crap.

The market really works in strange ways...

Well, the Playstation 3 Core CPU (or GPU) will run at a steady 250 GHz, if that's any inclination to the advancing of computers in the near future. It uses cell technology which basically makes every single PS3 released part of one gigantic super-computer. Videogames are going to get pretty interesting in the next 10 years.

-Lasereth

The hardware sounds great.,.... but it'll still be crap... just add Windows and see :D

LOL, I don't think any home OS's support that powerful a CPU.

Everywhere I'm reading it's a 4GHz Cpu running 250Gflops. You sure that's not what you meant?

Somebody has actually come up with a way to mass-produce REAL diamonds (i.e. not cubic zirconium or whatever), and if it catches on, I think it can SERIOUSLY change the way computers run. Diamond is capable of withstanding way higher temperatures than silicon.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

The only problem is, there's a chance it could put the whole diamond industry out of business. Honestly, I don't care, I just want faster computers. :)

Pffft! Women can find a new best friend! lol

lol - Perhaps we should experiment with an OS that's more reliable than Windows ... like Unix/Linux :D

Wired had an article about diamond semiconductors in this months issue. Diamonds made in a lab and all. Its a good read.

eh...No thanks. (<- yeah, right)

lol....that's a telephone man...

back when 500 MHZ was the best personal computer, they had 2.4 Ghz phones....phones are always ahead of the computers, it's a frequency.
like radios man...
you know...AM uses Kilohertz, and FM uses Megahertz....

Thought I'd tap into my notes from school to help explain the difference between MHz for CPU and Phones.... here goes:

Frequency with telephones and frequency with CPUs are completely different things. The term frequency itself just refers to the amount of times something happens in a second. One Hertz (Hz) equals one cycle/signal sent/etc per second.

When GHz are reffered to with telephones (wireless), 2.4GHz refers to the frequency range that the cordless receivers use. Most cordless phones use either 900MHz (cheaper phones) up to 2.4GHz (better phones). The frequency range is just the frequency that the radio waves are sent at. The higher the frequency, the better and faster the transmission. All wireless devices that use radio waves are assigned a specific frequency range to operate in...everything from radios (FM being 88 -> 109Mhz), to Wireless Ethernet (2.4GHz - 2.48Ghz, some variances...), GPS, satelite (yep, they're radio, just concentrated). Main reason for such variance in frequency is to avoid interference. Also, each frequency range can also be divided into sub"channels" for further avoidance of interference. The higher the frequency's have better quallity, hence devices that benefit from such use those ranges (networks, satelite, cell phones, etc), whilst lower ranges are assigned to devices that do not require such high frequency (audio radio). In short, frequency with radio is measured by the number signals sent per second. Hz = one signal. MHz = 1000 signals, GHz = 1 million signals.

CPU frequency is alot easier to explain than radio waves. With CPU, Hz refers to the number of cycles that the processor processes per second. The main reason that CPU's have seemed to lag behind radio is simple.... radio doesn't process information, it is just a message of range. CPU processing creates heat, alot of heat. CPUs therefore can only process so much info without catching fire (literally). With upgrades in technology, more transitors are fit onto processor dies, theorectically allowing higher clock speeds....ie more GHz. Moore's law when studied properly explains this in more detail. (Although with recent synthetic diamonds being produced at a cheap price, if CPU manufacturers take advantage of them, look to see EXTREMELY fast CPUs running super cool compared to modern CPUs).

Phew.... hope that explains things a bit... I paraphrased most of my notes, so I hope I didn't leave anything out. :P :)

Well that's the last time I copy and paste a thread from another forum.

Well, I know for a fact that Ken Kutaragi, the CEO of Sony Inc. announced that the PS3 will be "rougly as powerful as 100 Pentium 4 processors running at 2.5 GHz. That makes the PS2 essentially over 200 GHz." I guess it depends on which way you look at it. I know that the core runs closer to 4 GHz like you said, but every PS3 is going to be connected on the cell "network" that's been developed. In other words, every single PS3 owned will be part of one major super computer. Maybe that's what he's talking about. Oh well, either way, it's one powerful machine!

-Lasereth