Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2006 22:24 UTC, submitted by Ronald Vos
IBM "IBM and the Georgia Institute of Technology announced today that their researchers have demonstrated the first silicon-based chip capable of operating at frequencies above 500 GHz - 500 billion cycles per second - by cryogenically 'freezing' the chip to 451 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (4.5 Kelvins)." Now that's what I'd like to see in the new PowerBook. Oh, wait.
Order by: Score:
Different set of problems
by rayiner on Tue 20th Jun 2006 22:39 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

This just proves the Intel switch was the right thing to do! Imagine if Apple had chosen a cryogenically frozen chip for the Macbook! People would be up in arms about the machine giving them severe cold contact burns!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Different set of problems
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "Different set of problems"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Mmm, I'm Dutch, I'm more accustomed to cold than to warmth.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Different set of problems
by suryad on Wed 21st Jun 2006 01:27 UTC in reply to "Different set of problems"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

How does this have anything to do with the Intel/IBM switch? I am using a 17 inch dual core INtel pwoerbook and you wont believe the amount of heat it is generating. You literally cant touch the keyboard! Is that what you were referring to when you said the Intel switch was right to do? I am not attacking your personally but both Intel and IBM chips run hot! How much the actual difference in thermal output is I dont care to know but the point of my post is that they are both flipping hot!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Different set of problems
by rayiner on Wed 21st Jun 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Different set of problems"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I was being facetious.

That said, Intel's chips don't run particularly hot. Apple just doesn't move enough air through the Macbooks to keep the temperatures down. My Macbook gets about as hot as my Inspiron 8200 (though the hot areas are more localized on the Macbook), even though the P4-M in the latter has almost double the power dissipation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Different set of problems
by buffzilla on Wed 21st Jun 2006 19:39 UTC in reply to "Different set of problems"
buffzilla Member since:
2006-06-01

Very unlikely though as it would involve selling a fast computer.

Reply Score: 1

Ehh, what...
by riha on Tue 20th Jun 2006 23:26 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

Taken from IBM site:

"By comparison, 500 GHz is more than 250 times faster than today's cell phones, which typically operate at approximately 2 GHz."

I donīt think i have ever seen any cell phones with 2 GHz CPU:s.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ehh, what...
by atsureki on Tue 20th Jun 2006 23:51 UTC in reply to "Ehh, what..."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Looks like we're talking oscillators, not CPUs. It doesn't mean that much to OSNews readers if they can get one transistor doing 500 Gs. If they can get 3 million doing it in one square inch, then there will be much rejoicing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ehh, what...
by rayiner on Wed 21st Jun 2006 00:29 UTC in reply to "Ehh, what..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I think they're referring to the fact that Cell phone transmitters operate in the 1900 MHz band here in the US.

Which is a completely meaningless comparison, but I digress.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ehh, what...
by riha on Wed 21st Jun 2006 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Ehh, what..."
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

You can be correct on that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ehh, what...
by buffzilla on Wed 21st Jun 2006 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Ehh, what..."
buffzilla Member since:
2006-06-01

Not totally meaningless, as such a chip would enable software defined microwave signals.

Reply Score: 1

cell phones?
by halfmanhalfamazing on Tue 20th Jun 2006 23:48 UTC
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

---------"By comparison, 500 GHz is more than 250 times faster than today's cell phones, which typically operate at approximately 2 GHz."----------

That explains why so many windows based pda's and smartphones are so seemingly slow when you use them. They don't have enough horsepower to handle what's being thrown at them.

Reply Score: 1

& CPUs
by poohgee on Wed 21st Jun 2006 01:35 UTC
poohgee
Member since:
2005-08-13

.. lack of knowledge thing here again .. IMO :

As said above yes these GHz frequencies are used in phones etc but actually have nothing really to do with big data processing but with saving power as far as Ive heard .

Could someone knowledgeable of phone processor technology & this whole area please explain this one ?

Before this will end up in an utterly useless comments secton ... .

Edited 2006-06-21 01:36

Reply Score: 1

RE: & CPUs
by Cloudy on Wed 21st Jun 2006 05:04 UTC in reply to "& CPUs"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

They are talking about transistor switching frequencies, not embedded processor frequencies. In order to generate the approximately 2ghz signal used by the radio portion of a cell phone, at least some part of the circuitry has to run at 2ghz switching speeds.

embedded processor clock frequencies in cell phones tend to be O(100-250) mhz, although that rate is growing.

Reply Score: 1

You don't get it...
by fluffybunny on Wed 21st Jun 2006 03:19 UTC
fluffybunny
Member since:
2005-10-05

I think what the news means to say is that IBM and GIT is able to keep increasing the speed of Silicon based chips to enable faster processing, whereas other chip manufacturers are having problems in making higher performance processors.

Comprendo ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: You don't get it...
by peskanov on Wed 21st Jun 2006 09:03 UTC in reply to "You don't get it..."
peskanov Member since:
2006-01-15

"Comprendo ?"

Tu sabras si comprendes o no... ;)

("Comprendo?" means "Do I understand?")

Reply Score: 1

Off topic
by Treza on Wed 21st Jun 2006 07:34 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

Well, you actually realise that transistors are also used outside of PC chips ?

Operating integrated circuits ( not digital circuits ) at these frequencies can have many interesting applications for communications ( thus the comparison with phones is valid ). At these frequencies, radio waves approach infrared light frequencies, it is no wonder that some military applications are expected ( :-( )

So far, these frequencies where only acheivable with vacuum tube devices.

Well, that article is basically off topic for OSNews.

Reply Score: 1

not plausible for large scale distribution
by bonjour on Wed 21st Jun 2006 11:13 UTC
bonjour
Member since:
2005-07-12

producing that kind of cooling is going to be expensive. no number of fans would work, you'd need something like liquid nitrogen.

Reply Score: 1

Errr....
by Nyte on Wed 21st Jun 2006 13:02 UTC
Nyte
Member since:
2006-03-11

The announcement states that this "thing" can operate around 350GHz in "room temperature."

Reply Score: 1

let me see it...
by xushi on Wed 21st Jun 2006 13:14 UTC
xushi
Member since:
2005-08-29

If this is all true, how come we're not on ~100Ghz, 50Ghz, 20Ghz.... 10Ghz? 5Ghz cpu chips by now? (not rhetorical, i'm really asking..)

Reply Score: 1

RE: let me see it...
by jesu on Wed 21st Jun 2006 13:25 UTC in reply to "let me see it..."
jesu Member since:
2005-06-30

Because this chip is engineered to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except for running at high speeds.

Reply Score: 0

RE: let me see it...
by rayiner on Wed 21st Jun 2006 20:09 UTC in reply to "let me see it..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Because when we say "GHz", we mean different things. 500 GHz in this case is the switching speed of the transistor. When we say "GHz" with reference to processors, we're talking about how often the central clock in the CPU ticks. The two things are quite different, and the latter is far more complicated than the former. In the former case, the transistor just switches once per clock. In the latter case, a dozen or more logic circuits change states and settle, current propagates from one part of the chip to the other, etc.

Reply Score: 3

Lesser evil
by Sphinx on Wed 21st Jun 2006 14:41 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Which is better, a laptop burning your bits and pieces or freezing them?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lesser evil
by suryad on Wed 21st Jun 2006 18:09 UTC in reply to "Lesser evil"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Well technically it depends on who you are talking to I guess. The heat will render you sterile which means you can have promiscuous sex like Austin Powers....YEAH BABY! Or you can freeze your bits and put them in cryogenic storage...like Austin Powers for your future generations!

Reply Score: 1