Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> Hello!
>
> I ask this just, because I'm curious:
>
> When Intel is saying e.g., their processor is running at 3000MHz, what
> does this mean? Is there really any digital signal inside at that
> frequency, and a PLL that locks it to the in/out frequencies?
>
> I know, if they say, there front side bus operates at 800MHz, it's
> only 200MHz. Then they just multiply it by 4, because it's 32bit. But
> I cannot compare anything to vintage 8bit processors, so that doesn't
> make much sense.
>
> The second thing is: Processors are advanced thechnology. But could it
> be possible to have these speeds for a digital circuit, which means, a
> transition frequency of >10GHz to remain any waveform other than a
> pure sine? If I try to make a circuit with a simple 1stage transistor
> amplifier, I'll use the most expensive III-V-HEMFET for 10GHz, and
> it's still a challenging task, and power below 10W; and they can do
> this with >100 000 000 silicon tansistors, 100W of power, on a single
> chip for $250?
>
> I ever tried to wind a wire loop around a running procesor and connect
> it to a spectrum analyzer. But you can see anything from nearly dc up
> to the max freq. of the analyzer. No strong peak at the declared
> frequency.
I think you are saying that even technical types (Like us) have lost
touch with the reality of motherboard design and I agree. The change in
memory timings (Things like 6-1-1-1 structures) makes it difficult to
compare with older systems.
The sales talk can be ignored. Todays m/bs have a cpu talking to a
Northbridge, Southbridge, ram, agp, pci, ide, isa, and lagacy serial i/o
at decreasing speeds in the list above. You are not going to pick up
from an analyser, because the cacophony of signals will freak any
attempt at measurement. and being digital signals with information,
they should not yield to frequency analysis. You would require 50% duty
cycle at high speeds, or close to 1 50% cycle.
That said, you can probably trace back the crystal datasheets, and the
multiplier circuits to examine the clocks. It is true that when Intel
were claiming a FSB of 533 Mhz, the 266Mhz FSB Athlons were
outperforming them big time.
People have caught on that bottlenecks are bad. The market demands
faster numbers, but is too stupid to understand them. Intel are the
bigger liars (What's new?). This box (Athlon 2.6ghz) claims a FSB of 333
Mhz, but needs DDR ram, so the effect of 333 MHZ is achieved by 166MHZ
ram speeds. I am suire that is where they are at.
--
With best Regards,
Declan Moriarty.
--
Author: Declan Moriarty
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Hosting, San Diego, California -- http://www.fatcity.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB CHIPDIR-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
