"Stretch" 300MHz CPUs kill 2GHz counterparts

RagnaroK

Must be dreaming...
Joined
27 Apr 2002
Messages
673
Apparently, a new CPU manufacturer just started-up who calls themselves "Stretch", have a 300MHz CPU that can outperform 2GHz competition chips.

http://news.com.com/2100-1006-5199930.html


...Typical tasks, such as performing encryption or digital video processing on blocks of data, can be executed in single clock cycles...

...the chip has demonstrated 300MHz performance, outperforming 2GHz competition...
 
SPeedY_B said:
Just goes to show that MHz mean nothing ;)
AMD demonstrated this already by introducing Athlon XP. :)
You may also have noticed some articles relating to OC'd P3's outperforming the P4's. lol
 
300 killin a 2gig...all i can say is wow...startin to think i might wait to upgrade
 
ming said:
AMD demonstrated this already by introducing Athlon XP. :)
You may also have noticed some articles relating to OC'd P3's outperforming the P4's. lol
Apple already demonstrated it with the G3... G4... oh yeah, and the G5 :p :D

But yeah, the sooner manufacturers realise lower clock speeds, with less cooling, can do just as much as current "top end" chips, the better off we'll all be :)
 
I would really like to see a test computer with Windows loaded and with one of them inside. Then have them post some benchmarks.

Now I wonder how it would fair as a gamer's chip?
 
Guess games will be tested eventually.. it could compile code at 5GHz speeds, then play UT2004 like a Pentium2 :D
 
Well the concept (as others have stated) is a proven one that AMD has been relying on for years. More work per clock cycle at a lower speed will outperform a chip that operates faster. Now while I know that this is just a starting point with this company, there is a level of check and ballance that needs to be maintained for todays applications. A chip that does 3X the work per cycle but is 6X as slow will negate the whole purpose of having a chip that does that level of work. (This is why Intel keeps pushing up the speed of their chips.)

So there has to be a ballance of work per clock and clock speed or chip just won't cut it. I will get excited when they have a 2GHZ chip that performs like a 10 GHZ chip!
 
SPeedY_B said:
Apple already demonstrated it with the G3... G4... oh yeah, and the G5 :p :D

But yeah, the sooner manufacturers realise lower clock speeds, with less cooling, can do just as much as current "top end" chips, the better off we'll all be :)
thats because of RISC though, less codes the processor has implmented on-chip means it can perform those actions faster and the smaller required instruction set means that less of the chip needs to be set aside to perform them. This increases cooling and performance.

thats my understanding of it anyways
 
But something optimised for RISC should be no different than something optimised for CISC :)
 
its not the optimisation of the software, its the speed at which the processor can perform the actions. With RISC a lot more time and effort and silicon can be devoted to making just a few instructions run really quickly whereas with CISC with the larger instruction set, you cant be as generous with the silicon for certain instructions.

Thats my understanding anyway
 
Gary Pandher said:
300 killin a 2gig...all i can say is wow...startin to think i might wait to upgrade

Upgrade? Or downgrade?
Imagine in you will... A 3ghz chip with the same design...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back