Agreed. So we're talking optical or quantum computers for major single-thread performance gains, which are in the works, but clearly not right around the corner.
Casper Bang wrote: > Even if we had super conducting materials (i.e. no current leakage and > no problem with heat dissipation), there's still the physical > limitation of scaling transistors beyond a couple of atoms (the wall) > as well as the constant speed of electrons - 3GHz means impulses are > 100% out of sync after traveling just a couple of cm. Heat is more an > annoying consequence of CPU's effectively being over-clocked from the > manufacturer today (remember when a 486 or Pentium required just a > tiny heat sink?). > > /Casper > > On Nov 25, 5:31 pm, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, my mistake. I guess 135K (about -138°C) is not exactly in the achievable >> range for a regular computer. :-) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 17:23, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 17:17, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Didn't they discover a superconductor recently that 'super-conducts' at a >>>> quite achievable temperature ? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 16:04, Joshua Marinacci >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unlikely. The single core speed problem is due to fundamental limits of >>>>> physics. The only way we will make single cores significantly faster is >>>>> through major silicon process improvements (perhaps using new materials), >>>>> major cooling improvements (very unlikely), or by making programming >>>>> models >>>>> more tolerant of physical errors (which would be very interesting). >>>>> >>>>> - josh >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Mikael Grev wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> 1. a single CPU core is not going to become any faster. That's right; >>>>>>> a single thread is never going to run any faster in the future. We've >>>>>>> reached the end of the line as far as clock speed and on-chip >>>>>>> parallelization is concerned. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Bill Gates said that 640k was more than anyone would ever need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Something tells me that some innovative person will find a way to >>>>>> circumvent the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mikael >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> >>>>> Groups "The Java Posse" group. >>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> >>>>> [email protected]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups >>>>> .com> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>> >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "The Java Posse" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups >>>>> .com> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>>>> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
