facebook rss twitter

Intel explains the megahertz war armistice

by Mark Tyson on 22 February 2018, 14:31


Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadq2a

Add to My Vault: x

Through the 90s and into the noughties we witnessed the technologically thrilling megahertz war, as computer processors were cranked up from the tens of MHz to have their speeds more meaningfully measured in GHz. In the last few years this ascent has slowed, some might say stalled, and "the 10GHz result is still as unreachable now as it was five years ago," notes the Intel Developer Zone blog (via PC Gamer).

Claimed by Intel to be the first 1GHz PC procesor

What then, is the major obstacle that is in the way of producing, say, 10GHz processors? For a start the Intel blog says heat is a problem but isn't the biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome to unlock the GHz gates.

Superscalar architecture 'conveyor level'

Intel's expertise is in its own x86 architecture, which is a so called superscalar architecture. In summary, a superscalar processor can execute more than one instruction during a clock cycle by simultaneously dispatching multiple instructions to different execution units on the processor. However, speed ups in processor frequency are not always worthwhile, as they are limited by the longest clock tick step.

Intel's Victoria Zhislina explains the issue as follows, with help of the diagrams above and below:

"Suppose that the longest step requires 500 ps (picosecond) for execution. This is the clock tick length when the computer frequency is 2GHz. Then, we set a clock tick two times shorter, which would be 250 ps, and everything but the frequency remains the same. Now, what was identified as the longest step is executed during two clock ticks, which together takes 500 ps as well. Nothing is gained by making this change while designing such a change becomes much more complicated and heat emission increases."

"One could object to this and note that due to shorter clock ticks, the small steps will be executed faster, so the average speed will be greater. However, the following diagram shows that this is not the case."

Simply, after the initial much faster execution steps, all ticks subsequent to step 4 will be delayed. Thus efforts in shortening the longest step are what is being concentrated upon now.

One of the ways to shorten the longest tick is through a more advanced technological process and using smaller process nodes. You can see that clock speeds are gradually increasing, intergenerationally with this method. Another way to cut down the tick time is by dividing processes into smaller steps, but that has to be balanced against the generation of a certain level of additional steps which would then slow down execution times.

In her blog post Zhislina goes on to discusses further ideas on the challenge of processor frequency boosting. If you are interested, you can head on over to the Intel Developer Zone blog and look through the full post.

HEXUS Forums :: 11 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Maybe some games devs need informing too,as too many engines seem to just push one or two cores still.
Maybe some games devs need informing too,as too many engines seem to just push one or two cores still.

We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.
We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.

I would say the opposite - the engines which scaled well with more cores seem to be in use in consoles,ie,like the Frostbite engine. Most of the games which don't scale well them tend, to be more PC focused and the devs have just re-used ancient engines or modified them,some of which are based on stuff from the 1990s. Bethesda Game Studios is a prime example of this,and so are many PC orientated MMOs,etc like WoW and PS2. Even when they attempt to multi-thread the engines,you still see very poor core loading despite that.
We have consoles to thank for this, I'm afraid.

Nah it's the opposite of this - consoles all use AMD processors which tend to be less great at single threaded.
Sorry, but that is a very confused article. It confuses superscaler (more than one instruction at once) with pipelined (break instruction execution up into sections). So x86 is a pipelined implementation (bad use of the word architecture) and some bits of the pipeline are hard to make faster so you add stages and make the pipeline much longer which adds transistors and makes branch prediction failure more expensive.

We can hit 5GHz with modern processors with a good overclock, double sounds possible, but the point is that the system at 10GHz would be slower than what we have. It isn't that we *can't* hit 10GHz, it is just that it doesn't help.

Edit: The whole thing sounds like an advert for the Amulet asynchronous ARM chip from a decade ago. Wonder what ever happened to that group.