79 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
created_at: '2016-11-13T10:39:44.000Z'
|
||
title: Why CPU Frequency Stalled (2008)
|
||
url: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/why-cpu-frequency-stalled
|
||
author: sajid
|
||
points: 51
|
||
story_text:
|
||
comment_text:
|
||
num_comments: 48
|
||
story_id:
|
||
story_title:
|
||
story_url:
|
||
parent_id:
|
||
created_at_i: 1479033584
|
||
_tags:
|
||
- story
|
||
- author_sajid
|
||
- story_12942732
|
||
objectID: '12942732'
|
||
year: 2008
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
Advertisement
|
||
|
||
[![charts small
|
||
view](/img/31759-1372099381585.jpg)](/img/0408_data-xlrg-1372100315886.jpg)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Image: Intel; Charts: Michael Vella
|
||
|
||
Not so long ago, competitive sorts would boast of the cycle rate of
|
||
their PC’s central processing unit. But now it seems the only people who
|
||
talk it up are the overclockers—hobbyists who push their CPUs beyond
|
||
their specified limits. There are two reasons: CPU clock rates peaked a
|
||
few years ago \[see graph, top\], and they aren't a very useful key to
|
||
chip performance anyway.
|
||
|
||
The clock keeps a processor's parts working in unison, like rowers on a
|
||
galley ship. Other things being equal, the more ticks you have per
|
||
second, the more work will get done.
|
||
|
||
So why not push the clock faster? Because it's no longer worth the cost
|
||
in terms of power consumed and heat dissipated. Intel calls the
|
||
speed/power tradeoff a ”fundamental theorem of multicore
|
||
processors”—and that's the reason it makes sense to use two or more
|
||
processing areas, or cores, on a single chip.
|
||
|
||
Intel reports that underclocking a single core by 20 percent saves half
|
||
the power while sacrificing just 13 percent of the performance. That
|
||
means that if you divide the work between two cores running at an 80
|
||
percent clock rate, you get 73 percent better performance for the same
|
||
power. And the heat is dissipated at two points rather than one. So even
|
||
though the cutting-edge logic chip gulps ever more power \[see graph,
|
||
center\], it isn't about to melt its way through the floor.
|
||
|
||
That bodes well for Moore's Law, which predicts that about every two
|
||
years, manufacturers will double the number of transistors they cram
|
||
onto a given bit of silicon. The fundamental theorem says that we'll
|
||
still be able to make full use of those transistors for a good long
|
||
time. If once the whole choir of transistors had to sing to the beat of
|
||
a single metronome, now it can split up into sections—and harmonize.
|
||
|
||
**Count Paces? Or Measure The Distance Traveled?**
|
||
|
||
The rising power consumption of CPUs \[graph, center\] made it less
|
||
attractive to focus on cycles per second, so clock rates stalled
|
||
\[graph, top\]. A better gauge of performance, the number of
|
||
instructions performed per second \[graph, bottom\], continued to rise
|
||
without betraying any hint of the stall. That's because work once done
|
||
in a single processor is now divided among several processing
|
||
cores—four of them in the case of Intel's Quad-Core chip \[below\].
|
||
|
||
![data f1](/img/dataf1-1372099277050.jpg)
|
||
|
||
Image: Intel; Charts: Michael Vella
|
||
|
||
Advertisement
|