| Author |
Message |
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1123281266.100777.106110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I think the clock frequency is very important.
What is the maximum frequency that these kind of "cpu clocks" can
provide ?
Skybuck Flying
Instead of asking all these painfully basic questions and getting
one-off short answers, perhaps you should go shopping at your local
bookstore or on the web for information on computer architecture?
Tim Wescott
In addition, learning to use a search engine
and finding out how to narrow a search
has an instructive quality all its own.
Here's the one for the sci.electronics.* part of the Usenet Archives:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=gh&sel=33580724
|
I am getting a error:
"
Server Error
The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.
If the problem persists, please report your problem and mention this error
message and the query that caused it.
"
Maybe only a temporarely problem.
I still haven't seen any answer to my question... ;)
What's the maximum frequency nowadays ?
Bye,
Skybuck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sander Vesik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
In comp.arch Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Yesssss but maybe the propagation length doesn't matter for a small circuit
like my 1 bit cpu =D
|
Or maybe it does? But its up to you to find out.
| Quote: |
So I would still like to know what the maximum frequency is ;)
|
There is no such thing. Or very close to no such thing, except possibly
somewhere in UV/r?ntgen border area.
| Quote: |
And in case the circuit is bigger how do circuits nowadays propagate the
clock signal reliably ;)
|
You should first use Google and then ask. Or will you only be sensible when
skybucks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpigs fly?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
"Helmut Sennewald" <helmutsennewald@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dd1qc1$fbr$04$1@news.t-online.com...
| Quote: | "Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dd1mh0$9bo$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1123281266.100777.106110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think the clock frequency is very important.
What is the maximum frequency that these kind of "cpu clocks" can
provide ?
Skybuck Flying
Instead of asking all these painfully basic questions and getting
one-off short answers, perhaps you should go shopping at your local
bookstore or on the web for information on computer architecture?
Tim Wescott
In addition, learning to use a search engine
and finding out how to narrow a search
has an instructive quality all its own.
Here's the one for the sci.electronics.* part of the Usenet Archives:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=gh&sel=33580724
I am getting a error:
"
Server Error
The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.
If the problem persists, please report your problem and mention this
error
message and the query that caused it.
"
Maybe only a temporarely problem.
I still haven't seen any answer to my question... ;)
What's the maximum frequency nowadays ?
Bye,
Skybuck.
Hello Skybuck,
you should see a dozen answers to your question if not then
try another news group reader.
Again,
You can achieve 20GHz(20e9Hz) with a T-fliflop.
|
??
But a T-flipflop is not a clock ???
| Quote: |
Other insist they can get 100Tflop.
Now I know why you wanted a design with T(flip)flop.
Maybe this "flip" doubles the Tflop. :)
http://www.hoise.com/primeur/03/articles/live/AE-PL-06-03-5.html
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
A real answer:
A simple processor alone could achieve some GHz, e.g. 10GHz,
but it becomes very expensive and anotrher problem is feeding
such a beast with enough data from memory.
This is then something for an IEEE paper, but nothing which
will make you rich.
Best regards,
Helmut
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Koren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd1qg1$mu$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
| Quote: |
"Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42f4635c$1@news.meer.net...
While one should not in general feed the trolls as a
matter of principle, I will make an exception just to
point out that your question suggests you have not
really thought about the problem in any depth.
What matters most for real circuit design is not the
highest frequency that the clock can generate -- but
rather how far can the clock signal be propagated
reliably and without excessive distortion (distance
and fan-out).
Yesssss but maybe the propagation length doesn't matter for a small
circuit
like my 1 bit cpu =D
So I would still like to know what the maximum frequency is ;)
And in case the circuit is bigger how do circuits nowadays propagate the
clock signal reliably ;)
|
For a single bit you can use your great-grandfather's
pocket watch. It shouldn't make any difference.
dk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
In article <11ev58aqbhj9b55@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
| Quote: | and it makes us work at answering questions bit by bit that
are better answered all at once (or at least in much larger chunks).
|
.... we're back that 1-bit Turing machine again ...
Maybe this thread is a real live Turing test? :)
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colonel Forbin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Maximum clock frequency ? |
|
|
In article <dd880t$s5q$1@posie.local.dom>, Mike <mjb@pootle.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <11ev58aqbhj9b55@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
and it makes us work at answering questions bit by bit that
are better answered all at once (or at least in much larger chunks).
... we're back that 1-bit Turing machine again ...
Maybe this thread is a real live Turing test? :)
|
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Otherwise starbuck may fly. ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in