I predict Intel will come out with a 4.4 GHz processor in 2011.
I predict a 4.6 GHz for 2012.
I predict a 4.8 GHz for 2013.
Along with a 5.0 GHz for 2014.


My prediction is based on Intel's current rate from year to year every time Intel comes out with a new processor for the past 10 years roughly follows a 200 MHz increase from year to year.

Part of my prediction comes from 3 GHz in 2002 to 4.2 GHz with the Intel extreme edition i7 and the 3GHz Pentium 4 in 2002. List your predictions and if you think I am wrong post at the bottom of your prediction. I put this in hard ware because processors are hardware.


Edit: Typically when processors get faster they shrink the size of the transistors. It keeps the processors cooler.

Well I predict we will have computers next year with 36 gigs of ram considering mac has a computer with 32 gigs of ram this year so my prediction is some computer company somewhere will have a computer with 36 gigs of ram next year.

As for cache I am saying it will follow a linear pattern like the Ghz in cpus so I am saying is intel is following a linear pattern maybe they don't think it's there best interests to go faster as fast as possible but instead stay at a linear pattern and make a killing going in slow increments when people upgrade when this processor is a little bit faster than that one but it took us a year to get here but why not have a faster one than the person next to you for 10 more dollars than the last computer you bought from us.

Maybe, but I don't think the processor speed matters all that much anymore. The FSB and L caches matter much more, because they are at the limit of being able to handle the throughput. I think someone said that in some cases the processor idles most of the time waiting for I/O to finish. So, make sure to check the FSB and cache sizes before buying, otherwise all those GHz will be wasted.

If you look at this one compared to the current top model I can't see any gain in clockspeed, even with Turbo Boost enabled.
Besides that, I think that the trend is clearly set to "more cores, faster connection to the chipset, more cache", or simply said: the processors are good, we need better infrastructure. I don't think that we will have another "GHz-race".

Edit: I forgot to mention the TDP. The current top model has a TDP of 130W, which is somewhat the limit that you can handle on normal desktop systems. The Pentium 4 had the same problems, it could easy reach the 4 GHz barrier, but you can not cool it down anymore with "normal" cooling systems. Same will happen with newer processors, raising clockspeed means that you in most cases have to raise the voltages, and this will give you an exponential increase in quantity of power taken by the CPU.

Not sure as to when this might occur, but I would suspect that moving large amounts of ram onto the cpu will be the next large step forward. The pathways between the ram and the cpu are already an issue(lag). As core count and Ghz continue to rise this will just become more of an issue.

It's hard to predict how many core the next Intel processor will have. Intel just recently unveiled a 80 core prototype processor that performs roughly to 1.5 tera-flops. Intel's core i7 extreme edition when massively over-clocked to something will perform to 10 tera-flops. When you load Intel's newest i7 extreme edition processor it can't use all of its power because it's limited. It might be the ram thing it might be cache, but what I am getting at is they are pushing it with how many cores they can cram into one processor before the thing won't perform to its true performance.

Sure they can pack lots of cores into a processor, but it won't help, because programs simply aren't threaded enough to benefit from it. I wouldn't buy something with 80 cores, it's crazy. I think 4 cores is plenty, 8 is a lot, and anything too much over that is too many, and for no good.

From time to time I read some of Intel's documentation and it's the same old thing. Break through, brag, break through, and why you should buy are product. AMD is falling behind Intel in the "...multi-core race which is fought with software...". Intel is obsessed with having a processor faster than AMD's. In the Linux world you come across all processor vender's but I am starting to see ARM come up more and more anyone know anything about them because I have not heard much in the chatter of the other processors. All I do know about ARM is they are used in phones and mobile devices.

Intel is ripping us off. I saw the cache on that thing 2M. From what I read from there documentation they have a model that will perform 24 Gb/s to the ram, and 2 Gb/s at most can used. Maybe if some one has the highest performing i7 and Gentoo I think you can get some of your moneys worth. So you know what I am talking about when earlier I said when on some i7 processors you can't get full usage out of the thing at high load. I will post the video link.

EDIT: I could not find it, but it showed that one of Intel's highest performing i7's hitting a peak in performance at about between 60 to 70 percent per core.

It certainly is possible. Personally I would buy an i5 (the ones with 8MB cache), because it's cheaper and can be overclocked if you need more power.

My current config is a PII 400mhz with 256mb ram and a Leadtek TNT2 Ultra for video. I only had 64mb ram until this year when the
prices on ram went way down. That's probably why my computer is doing so well right now.

1 members found this post helpful.

I predict that they will copy IBM's new light based processor.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...ing-revolution

I predict they will change socket base to make all older m/bs and memory obsolete.

Intel will be the first of many to steal this idea. First Intel, Amd, then I bet Arm will take it on. My only question for this processor is how fast can it really go. You know how we were talking about the cache in the i7 not being really enough, I think ram that will keep up with this thing might be the next issue If and only if the rest of the hardware can keep up.

If its cheaper than the i7 it will have a fighting chance. Just think how weird the architecture must be for this thing. Intel's multi-core war just went out the window. I wonder if they are working on light based ram, oh wait a minute I think they are, but I think it takes ram to the atomic level.

Well since we are talking about "super hardware" anyone have interesting comments about the heat these new light based hardware might throw off.

EDIT: Wow this processor seems to be the real deal. Its smaller than anything Intel makes. I may need to change the title of the thread to "Processor Predictions for the Future" if this thing is legit.

Intel already posted a roadmap up to 2020. It shows that they are pushing for more cores for one chip. The processor speed is not the game anymore. The name of game is always the performance factor which AMD stated since the K7 age. By 2020, Intel will probably have a processor containing up to 100 cores in one chip, but this amount depends on Windows. Even though Intel has the best performing processor at this time, Intel will be playing ketchup to combine a CPU and APU in one chip. AMD will be introducing a CPU and APU in one chip next year. By 2020, the FPU and ALU will completely vanish and be replaced with the APU.

Optics will not replace processors by 2020. Optics will substitute external connections and communized the connection. LightPeak does this, so we are already seeing optics are going to come out soon.

From 2000 to 2010, the 80x86 industry is boring. It is already known that 80x86 systems benefits using more than one processor. In the 90s, 80x86 made a lot of advancements. What is going to happen from 2010 to 2020, is ARM will be showing its prime time which 80x86 processors did during the 90s. Though the hardware that dominates 2000 to 2010 is graphic processing units.

It is not mentioned anywhere how exactly this is supposed to work, so I'll believe it when I see it.