Don't expect 2.5Ghz any time soon

Jump to First Reply
strobestrobe
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to this article IBM only projected 2.5Ghz when the die is shrunk to 90nm:



<a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html"; target="_blank">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html</a>;

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    t'hain esh kelcht'hain esh kelch Posts: 1,274member
    I don't like this part:

    [quote]

    Even at the lower end of its range, 1.8GHz, the upcoming chip will run nearly twice as fast as IBM's quickest existing PowerPC chip, the 1GHz 750FX.<hr></blockquote>

    Looks like it wont be as blazing fast as we think..

    Unless they mean that 1.8 Ghz = almost twice as fast as 1.0 Ghz, even though they are two diffrent processors...



    Lets hope so...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 5
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    FYI MacBidouille says the 130nm does run at 2.5Ghz, but needs a lot of cooling and power (similar to the P4@2.5Ghz).



    <a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-03-10#4956"; target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-03-10#4956</a>;



    Sounds like an overclickers dream CPU.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 5
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by strobe:

    <strong>According to this article IBM only projected 2.5Ghz when the die is shrunk to 90nm:



    <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html"; target="_blank">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;



    Your statement is exactly correct: IBM only projected 2.5 GHz...



    Some designs underachieve, some designs overachieve. Few actually meet the projections exactly. And if you're only talking about clock rate then it is correct to say "the 1.8 GHz chip will run nearly twice as fast as ... the 1 GHz 750FX". This does not say it will "perform nearly twice as well", or "its SPECmarks are almost double".
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 5
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    To me this article shows how inept the fact finding of the author really is. He's putting 2 and 2 together and somehow getting 5. That part about a 970 only being twice as fast as the 750FX is pure speculation and a fabrication on the authors part.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 5
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Please use one of the various 970 threads to continue discussing this please. Thanks.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.