6.0GHz in 2004 for the Masses

[Sunner]

Pink, I don't know what you work with, but you seem completely unable to grasp the fact that some people work with things that aren't IO bound.

But since you say it's a universal fact that the HD is the biggest bottleneck in every computer, how about this:
I go buy 3 Cheetah 15K.3 disks, and a nice RAID controller and set it all up in a nice RAID5, and if this helps out the stuff I work with, I'll hand over the HD's to you and admit you're absolutely right.
But if it doesn't, you'll pay for the HD's and I keep them, sounds like a great deal considdering you can't possibly be wrong, no?

If that doesn't sound good, I'd be perfectly happy if you could tell me how exactly a faster HD is gonna speed up, for example compilation of a program?
Or perhaps it will speed up the GUI I use to administer out backup server around here?

Oh and someone already mentioned this, but you never replied, but going by your deifnition, a floppy should definately be the biggest bottleneck in a system, no?
I mean they can transfer like 200 KB/Sec, if that, and seektimes are on the order of several seconds.

Oh and one more thing, calling Sochan an idiot for presenting valid points in a mature matter really makes you look very smart yourself

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Pink0

Merely stating that the hard drive is the slowest component of a system does not make it *THE* bottleneck

Actually, that's the definition of bottlneck: the slowest part. The smallest part of the bottle. The neck of the bottle.

In that case, the bottleneck would be the floppy-drive . Or are you saying that floppies are faster than hard-disks?

the point is that HD is the bottleneck when it's actively accessed. But it's not accessed all the time. CPU and memory are accessed alot more than HD is. Of course, HD gets acecssed more in some kinds of applications (video-editing, fileserving etc.).

You and Gonad seem to suffer from somekind of superiority-complex. You both seem arrogant and pompous. "yeah, these gamers don't know what they are talking about. But I do REAL work with my computer, therefore I know more than they do"

.

 

[dexvx]

The Harddrive is the bottleneck for most consumer PC's is because the market doesnt give a d@mn about faster harddrive speeds (burst, sustained transfer, seek times). More people care about storage size rather than speed. The HDD speeds of the faster 7200 rpm drives are acceptable enough so that it doesnt hugely hinder daily performance while keeping storage size large. If the norm for IDE drives were 15K rpm, then their capacities would shrink. If given a choice between a 180GB WD-JB or a single 18GB Seagate Cheetah 15K as their ONE AND ONLY drive, I would say the vast majority of the people on this forum would opt for the WD-JB's.

For reference, it took Dell 3 years to wean people from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm. I believe the last 5400 rpms Dell used were about the time the first Pentium4 systems came about, and the weaning began when the first Pentium3 systems were introduced.

 

[Pink0]

I didn't read all of those but I have already adressed floppies and CDROMs. You say that I haven't but I have. Read. I have also already adressed that some applications don't use the hard drive intensively. In fact, I did it in two posts. I wish people would read.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Pink0
I didn't read all of those but I have already adressed floppies and CDROMs. You say that I haven't but I have. Read. I have also already adressed that some applications don't use the hard drive intensively. In fact, I did it in two posts. I wish people would read.

I mostly see you throwing insults at people who are basically saying you're right in some cases and wrong in others.
I dont think anyone in this thread has denied that when an application is IO intensive the HD will most likely become the bottleneck, what people have said is that many applications are not, including games, various scientific applications, compilations, etc, or in short, that the bottleneck differs depending on what you do with yoour computer, but you seem to disagree with this.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Pink0
I didn't read all of those but I have already adressed floppies and CDROMs. You say that I haven't but I have. Read. I have also already adressed that some applications don't use the hard drive intensively. In fact, I did it in two posts. I wish people would read.

It's also possible to run a system without a hard disk at all (boot linux off network/CD-ROM, load into RAM.)

I don't think anyone is really disputing the fact that in I/O intensive applications the HDD is the main bottleneck as long as the CPU is fast enough to deal with data input. This said, in games and other CPU-Bound applications (which are still entirely valid uses for PCs) having a faster CPU is always a good idea, as is having a faster graphics card and RAM.

 

[JetsFanatic]

Originally posted by: teddymines
Until other bottlenecks in the system, like disk and memory access, are resolved, I see little value besides bragging rights.

Ditto

 

[teddymines]

Bottlenecks affect different user classes in different ways. Someone doing compiles would probably see the HD bottleneck because of a lot of I/O. Someone performing image modifications would probably see a memory bottleneck (assuming the image and manipulation libraries are already in memory).

Of course, the HD bottleneck could be eliminated if the OS and applications were memory-based, but then you'll have the memory bandwidth to complain about. Until there is enough demand for a memory-based OS where it impacts companies that currently market disk-based operating systems, we will not see it, and will have to live with the HD bottleneck.

I still stand by the idea that processor speed sells computers. How many times have you told someone your FSB or AGP speed when describing your PC? You probably start out with, "I have a 1.6GHz athlon with 512MB RAM..."

So of course people will buy computers with the 6GHz with the false sense that it will operate 6 times faster than their 1GHz computer.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: teddymines


I still stand by the idea that processor speed sells computers. How many times have you told someone your FSB or AGP speed when describing your PC? You probably start out with, "I have a 1.6GHz athlon with 512MB RAM..."

or the p4 1.3Ghz with 128 SDRAM that was eaten alive by a p3 800

 

[Bovinicus]

Every time computers get more power, people ask the same question: "What could we possibly use all that power for?" If users are provided with more power, they will find a way to use it. What about real-time MPEG-4 encoding? What about totally realistic physics and AI in 3D games? What about cruching numbers for the SETI program, playing music, encoding videos, decompressing files, writing CDs, and playing a 3D game all at the same time? Users will find a way to take advantage of 6GHz one way or another.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: dexvx
The Harddrive is the bottleneck for most consumer PC's is because the market doesnt give a d@mn about faster harddrive speeds (burst, sustained transfer, seek times). More people care about storage size rather than speed. The HDD speeds of the faster 7200 rpm drives are acceptable enough so that it doesnt hugely hinder daily performance while keeping storage size large. If the norm for IDE drives were 15K rpm, then their capacities would shrink. If given a choice between a 180GB WD-JB or a single 18GB Seagate Cheetah 15K as their ONE AND ONLY drive, I would say the vast majority of the people on this forum would opt for the WD-JB's.

For reference, it took Dell 3 years to wean people from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm. I believe the last 5400 rpms Dell used were about the time the first Pentium4 systems came about, and the weaning began when the first Pentium3 systems were introduced.

In cases where the HD were the bottleneck, upgrading a 15K drive would mean a nice speed boost, but the HD would still be the bottleneck most likely.

As for Dell, they still sell PCs with 5400 rpm drives, but not because people need to be weaned. People don't even know that there is a difference between 5400 and 7200, so there is nothing to wean them from. They sell them because they're cheap and work fine for the low end PC for most Joe Schmoe types. Why spend the extra $20 on your product if it's not a selling point?

Anyways, I just saw an ad here for a low low end Dell with 1.6 GHz Celeron 128 MB SDRAM, integrated everthing, CD-ROM, and 5400 rpm 20 GB drive. The computer was about US$310 after rebate, and included a monitor.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Every time computers get more power, people ask the same question: "What could we possibly use all that power for?" If users are provided with more power, they will find a way to use it. What about real-time MPEG-4 encoding? What about totally realistic physics and AI in 3D games? What about cruching numbers for the SETI program, playing music, encoding videos, decompressing files, writing CDs, and playing a 3D game all at the same time? Users will find a way to take advantage of 6GHz one way or another.

The question isn't what you or I would do with that much power, the question is what will average Joe do with that much power? The computer industry is too large to be able to sustain itself catering to enthusiasts. There was a time when going from a Pentium 100 to a PII 350 yielded a large performance gain in practically everything even the average user did. Playing MP3's used to strain the average computer when it first hit the market, games were sluggish, software DVD was a dream. Now all those are nothing for an average 2GHz P4 system. Back in the PII days, office suite benchmarks actually meant something, now they don't matter in the slightest. Current computer power is fast enough to do everything the average user would need it for with plenty of power to spare, this wasn't the case in the past. Is average Joe going to notice the difference between a 1.8GHZ P4 and a 2.8GHz P4? Not for what he will be using it for. That's where the problem lies, there is nothing out there that gives average Joe a compelling reason to upgrade. There is nothing with mass appeal that can't be done with even the lowend systems that are being sold today, let alone the top of the line. There also doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon which is a major dilemma for the industry.

 

[grant2]

Um, since when is a P4 1.9 with a 60GB WD HDD ancient??

While it may not be the latest or greatest, its still a VERY fast computer.

As far as some Anandtech members are concerned, if the release announcement isn't still on Anand's main page, then it's "ancient"

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: grant2
"a bit outlandish" ?? Does it offend your religion or something to know that high-frequency processors exist?

"these guy's" are making processors that perform more complex programs, faster. Are you unhappy at the complexity, or the speed? Maybe you'd like to go back to dos 4.0 on a 286-12?

Outlandish= peculiar, odd, unnecessary*. Processors have been getting much faster, and much hotter. No I dont want a 286-12 as I'm sure your smart enough to know that so dont ask such stupid questions. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating how I feel about a jump to 6ghz, get over it.

Accordint to Merriam-Webster, "outlandish" = "exceeding proper or reasonable limits or standards", which is certainly the definition I inferred with your implication that it's "inefficient processing".

Let me ask a more intelligent question: Just what (arbitrary) GHZ do you feel *IS* acceptable? 5.9? 5.0? Or do you feel we've already gone too fast with 2.8?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: dexvx
The Harddrive is the bottleneck for most consumer PC's is because the market doesnt give a d@mn about faster harddrive speeds (burst, sustained transfer, seek times). More people care about storage size rather than speed. The HDD speeds of the faster 7200 rpm drives are acceptable enough so that it doesnt hugely hinder daily performance while keeping storage size large. If the norm for IDE drives were 15K rpm, then their capacities would shrink. If given a choice between a 180GB WD-JB or a single 18GB Seagate Cheetah 15K as their ONE AND ONLY drive, I would say the vast majority of the people on this forum would opt for the WD-JB's.

For reference, it took Dell 3 years to wean people from 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm. I believe the last 5400 rpms Dell used were about the time the first Pentium4 systems came about, and the weaning began when the first Pentium3 systems were introduced.

In cases where the HD were the bottleneck, upgrading a 15K drive would mean a nice speed boost, but the HD would still be the bottleneck most likely.

As for Dell, they still sell PCs with 5400 rpm drives, but not because people need to be weaned. People don't even know that there is a difference between 5400 and 7200, so there is nothing to wean them from. They sell them because they're cheap and work fine for the low end PC for most Joe Schmoe types. Why spend the extra $20 on your product if it's not a selling point?

Anyways, I just saw an ad here for a low low end Dell with 1.6 GHz Celeron 128 MB SDRAM, integrated everthing, CD-ROM, and 5400 rpm 20 GB drive. The computer was about US$310 after rebate, and included a monitor.

For the dell reference, you are mistaken. Beginning with the first P3's, Dell began offering 7200 rpm drives next to their 5400 rpm ones. They even had a little section of their magazine-type ads dedicated to saying how much better 7200 rpm was [insert benchmarks here and there]. In the end, dell learned that few people wanted to pay the price premium for the 7200 rpm drive, even as the system got more expensive. You might argue that dell overcharges for their 7200 rpm drives, but no, they were virtually at market cost comparative to an upgrade from a 5400 rpm drive. The fact that dell still offers 5400 rpm drives is because frankly the market (the consumer) sees it as unncessary. And when the market sees no demand for faster drives, the industry will not make faster drives.

As for how much is enough, there will never be enough. Until the day everyone can have the processing power to create a holo-deck with full AI in real time or model the entire universe as a series of equations, the need for more powerful computers will always be there. People complain that Windows takes too much resources, I see it more as "Windows is advancing to take advantage of newer technologies." WinXP is a lot better to use than Win95 ever was.

 

[BFG10K]

6 GHz interests me greatly for games but Intel is interested in voice/speech, handwriting and facial expression recognition.

I saw some hand writting recognition demonstrations a few days ago at a tech expo on one of Microsoft's new palm-tops and the results are nothing short of amazing. It picked up all of the chicken scratch thrown at it (including technical medical tems) and it didn't require any time at all to learn the user's handwriting. Basically it worked perfectly on real world handwriting.

Actually, that's the definition of bottlneck: the slowest part. The smallest part of the bottle. The neck of the bottle

Not if the water isn't passing through the neck (for example). Sohcan and others have explained the issue but I will say that your bottleneck view is simplistic and completely unrealistic. According to your reasoning there's no difference between a 166 MHz Pentium and a 1.6 GHz P4 if the HDs are the same in both machines.

Correct? I think not.

Hey Pink0, isn't the floppy/CDROM actually the slowest part of the system?

No, it's my fingers doing the typing.

 

[ProviaFan]

*sigh* In conclusion, there are many bottlenecks in the computer, one or another of which may be accentuated while a particular task is performed. When the speed of one component is increased (CPU, for example), the others must also see an increase in speed to catch up. Right now, of all the bottlenecks that afflict computers, the hard drive is the one that currently has the most catching up to bring it up to speed with the rest of the system. I'm not saying that other things are not a bottleneck, just that the hard drive, among other bottlenecks, limits whatever tasks depend on it most severly of all. Anyone agree with that?

 

[Insane3D]

I like smurfs and fluffernutters...

:Q

 

[Eug]

I tend not to make incremental speed upgrades. My next computer MUST be a several fold increase in speed vs. my current one. And I've decided that my next computer should be at least 3-5X as fast as my Celeron 800. That means something like a 3000+ Clawhammer or 3 GHz P4. Or perhaps a 1.8 GHz IBM PowerPC 970?

But I can tell ya, when I finally do upgrade, I usually find more than enough stuff to make use of the speed. With this Celeron, the speed was used for MP3 encoding. With my next CPU, the speed will be used for video encoding. (It's slow with my current computer, and would still be slow with a 1.8 GHz P4.)

I also tend to upgrade when the price point hits the mid-range. Current mid-priced (aka good-bang-for-the-buck) CPUs are of the 2000-2200 class. The top end is 2.8 GHz. That means I've probably got a year left in this Celery 800 before I upgrade, because it will take that long before 3000-class CPUs become reasonably priced.

For the dell reference, you are mistaken. Beginning with the first P3's, Dell began offering 7200 rpm drives next to their 5400 rpm ones. They even had a little section of their magazine-type ads dedicated to saying how much better 7200 rpm was [insert benchmarks here and there]. In the end, dell learned that few people wanted to pay the price premium for the 7200 rpm drive, even as the system got more expensive. You might argue that dell overcharges for their 7200 rpm drives, but no, they were virtually at market cost comparative to an upgrade from a 5400 rpm drive. The fact that dell still offers 5400 rpm drives is because frankly the market (the consumer) sees it as unncessary. And when the market sees no demand for faster drives, the industry will not make faster drives.

? I wasn't saying that Dell only used 5400 rpm drives. I was just saying that they still sell 5400 rpm drives in SOME of their systems, like the $310 special I'm talking about. (It was in response to someone else saying that Dell stopped selling 5400 rpm drives altogether.) I agree with your other points, some of which are pretty much what I said, but in a different way.

 

[Insane3D]

Your still using a 800mhz Celeron in the age of $50 XP's and such? :Q

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Your still using a 800mhz Celeron in the age of $50 XP's and such? :Q

It's actually a 533 MHz Celeron, overclocked to 800. The answer is yes, I'm still using it. Note though that I have a P4 1.6 GHz at work, and a G3 Mac as well. There is another Athlon 1 GHz I use too. Your $50 Athlon XP is a 1.4 GHz (1600+) chip.

I considered upgrading the Celeron, but it'd mean a new CPU, a new mobo, a bunch of new memory, and several hours of work. I know that if I get a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP I'll want to upgrade soon. I'd be happier to keep a 3000-class CPU for a few years. (Purpose is DVD encoding.)

I'm willing to wait a few months to get that, for a reasonable price. One of the problems is that it seems the new 3000-class chips may require new mobos. ie. I could upgrade now, and then upgrade again shortly thereafter. But another upgrade from the Athlon XP 1.4 GHz might mean a new mobo again. Thus, I have chosen to suffer for now. (I almost upgraded last week when I bought a new hard drive and reinstalled Windows, but I held back. ) If anything, I'd probably get an eMac before a new Athlon XP 1.4 GHz. It's slower, but the software is better for my purposes.

A 6 GHz machine would be VERY nice though.

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
All those visual doodads in XP eat up clocks. Several gigahertz worth? No, but M$ will find some way to use them. For instance, the .NET Framework is slow and could use a performance boost.

Moore's Law only applies to CPU's (far as I know) and not software. Microsoft has to continually pump out software to stay at the top, and while intel and AMD get faster all the time, M$ is making more and more bloated software to compensate. Sure, they could write faster code, but that takes time and money, why bother when you have such fast processors? Deadlines ppl.

 

[grant2]

Of course, an OS overhaul is necessary. 4GB is hardly enough for a serious worksatan 14 months from now. I'd say perhaps 5TB of fast storage and 128 GB of memory would be a good starting point for mid to high end worksatan 2Q04.

So the Prince of Darkness needs an upgrade?

I guess AMD's next campaign will picture a smiling Beelzebub with a Hammer processor on the end of his pitchfork ... "If Opteron can satisfy THIS hellish slavedriver, just imagine how happy YOUR boss will be!"