Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Renovating the wheel

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

boost 8086

 3 ghz 8086 multicore processor
 
(+1, -1) 		  [vote for,
against]

I would like to know how a 3 Ghz 8086 would preform compare to the processor of today. Todays processors use +/- 50 miljoen gates that are a lot of 8086s. What if 256 8086 processor where put in one chip and the clock rate was 3 ghz. Wouldn't that be faster than the fastest computer today? And if risc processors are uses instaid of the 8086s than that would mean another boost.
—pieterboots, May 23 2004

Stanley Steamer land speed record http://www.steamcar...Stanley_Steamer.htm
1906 on Ormond Beach, against three Fiats and one Napier. [jutta, Oct 04 2004]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       I know I wouldn't want to drive a Model T at 180mph.
—bristolz, May 23 2004
   

       1906-1910.
—jutta, May 23 2004
   

       Back to the idea for just a second... an 8086 wouldn't run at 3Ghz because of the way it's manufactured.   

       In a way, I have a bit of sympathy for the author here. I'll give [pieterboots] a little credit for at least thinking about it, but unfortunately, he/she seems to lack some rather basic and fundamental understanding of how microprocessors actually work.   

       To answer the question presented in the idea. In a word... no.
—zigness, May 23 2004
   

       If I understand the idea, you're calling for a return to simpler processors, but RISC processors exist.
—phoenix, May 23 2004
   

       Modern x86s have much better architectures in addition to faster clock speeds. For example, quicker arithmetic units, much better pipelining and multiple instruction decoders.   

       Also, it would be difficult to perform a fair comparison as modern cpus are designed to run in protected mode, which the 8086 didn't support.   

       Modern multiple-cpu systems (or multiple cpu cpu's, a la hyperthreading) rely on the software to be running in multiple threads, which in turn (to be fast and reliable) really requires some hardware assistance (protected mode again).   

       I wonder if we'll ever get access to the underlying risc hardware of modern x86s (ie, at the 'microcode' level)?
—benjamin, May 23 2004
   

       I thought that once you got much higher then the 25 processor mark, you have to start assigning specific processors specific tasks otherwise the communication between the processors gets so great it becomes unworthwhile.   

       My client has 30 processors and 6 of them we have to explicitly say 'Don't do any of the normal jobs, do special jobs instead'. Benchmarking showed 30 processors as being slower then 25!!!
—britboy, May 24 2004
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle