Anonymous asked in Computers & InternetHardwareOther - Hardware · 1 year ago

Is the semi conductor industry kind of slow with progress on CPU speed?

CEO of NVidia said eventually GPU speed will be faster than CPU speed. I wonder sometimes, shouldn't we be at 10ghz or more by now with CPU speed or is the semi conductor industry still stuck trying to figure that out because as CPU speed gets faster, so is the amount of space gets thinner and can't squeeze it in? Steve Jobs said something like that one time.

4 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, because the manufacturing of Silicon based processors is hitting it's limits and die shrinks are becoming more difficult to pull off. No one really knows if Silicon based processors will ever hit the theoretical 3nm process which looks to be 10 years away. If the tech industry doesn't find a new and more efficient material to make processors soon then computing will hit an era of stagnation.

    -Samsung and TSMC are flat out lying about their processors being on the 7nm process. Their processors are comparable to Intel's 10nm processors. At some point these companies will be exposed. For that matter, these names like 90nm, 22nm, 14nm, 7nm are all pseudonyms that don't represent the actual measurements within a CPU..... but these pseudonyms have Wall Street fooled.

    -Intel originally intended for their 10nm processors to come out in 2016, and their 14nm products to come out in 2014. It's 2019 and their 10nm chips are only available for Mobility (Laptops), while their 14nm processors were a year late.

    -Nvidia intended for their Turning RTX2000/GTX1600 based chips to be built on the 10nm process and 900-series Maxwell parts to be built on the 20nm process. Turning is fabbed on the 12nm process while Maxwell stayed on the 28nm process.

    -AMD intended to put 20nm based FX and A-Series processors on the market sometime around 2014 but that never happened.

    Processors hit 3ghz way back in 2002 and it was apparent that it was hitting it's limits back then. Now, Silicon based processors have trouble with 5ghz on one core. It's possible to clock a CPU beyond 5ghz but the CPU can't handle the excessive voltage for very long and the waste heat requires exotic types of cooling like DICE, L2N. The only time a CPU is overclocked to +6ghz is in overclocking competitions and it's been that way for years. Silicon based processors are close to hitting their clock speed limits.

    The way processors have become faster over the lase decade is through increasing Architectural Efficiency. The single threaded/single core performance of the current 14nm Core i7 processors are 50% faster than the 1st Generation (45nm) Core i7 processors. The other way processors have become faster is by increasing core counts which has recently become the focus of both Intel and AMD.

    Jensen at least has some room to play with because Graphics Processing Units are now clocking in at nearly 2ghz and he's proven that Nvidia can design processors with massive die spaces. Even still growth potential is limited which would give then one extra uARCH Generation to spend on product availability. It doesn't take an industry insider to figure that out that no one has more than 10 years to play with.

    • Robert J
      Lv 7
      1 year agoReport

      The 45nm or 10nm etc. unit value is the smallest-possible-distance-between-changes for want of a better description.

      Think of it as equivalent to a pixel pitch in graphics.

      A single transistor "plan" takes almost exactly a 10x10 unit area, at whatever detail size.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    you have it backward ... the space between adjacent elements of the cpu becomming smaller is what permits faster speeds. Intel is having trouble getting its 10 nm process ro work reliably. TSMC is providing 7nm chips to AMD. I think I saw that NVidia is getting 8 nm chips from Samsung.

    Quantum tunneling phenomena [physics of the insulating qualities of very small distances] suggest that present materials may have an absolute reliable lower limit near 6 nm.

    To go below that, and thus to get faster chips, is apparently going to require different methods or different materials. Both are in research phases by multiple companies but, to date that I've seen, no one has claimed they can reliably create such in production sizes and lots.

    It is entirely possible that after "everyone" in the industry achieves 7 nm production reliably that speed will STOP increasing -- for an unknown period of time.

    Effectively, this will end the run of Moore's Law -- computing power will cease doubling every 1.5 years at cheaper cost. {In effect, it looks like we're there already and I'm willing to be surprised.}

    Source(s): grampa
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Fulano
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    They have been getting faster, but GHz isn't a measure of CPU speed. Look up benchmarks if you want numbers that are easier to compare.

    But yes, progression on CPUs and GPUs is slowing down. They're beginning to hit physical limits with the current methods of processing, so CPUs are just adding more cores which may or may not help a program run faster.

    I don't think we'll see another big jump in processing speed unless they develop a new way of designing or making CPUs.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    Clock speed isn't directly correlated with performance. We do not currently use 10 GHz processors because they would require more power and generate more heat than running multiple cores at a lower speed would accomplish. GPUs already draw way more power and generate more heat than CPUs. They will not be able to go much faster than they are now without exceeding the ability of the average consumer to power and cool them adequately. Many industry insiders have speculated that this is why NVidia purchased Mellanox; they will be unable to innovate in the consumer space much longer and thus are moving towards datacenter technologies instead.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.