What do you really want from a CPU?

Intel and AMD seem to be focusing on performance by increasing speeds and the number of cores. I am interested to know whether this is what people really want.

Personally, I think processors are fast enough (I have a 2GHZ CPU) and from many review sites they say adding more cores currently does very little anyway.

What I really want is for Intel and AMD to reduce the power consumption and heat of their CPU and therefore create a fanless notebook which can operate for hours.

What do you guys want?

 

Faster with more cores.

That, and the ability to properly utilize those cores.

 

You think they're fast enough for what though? 2GHz for some is nothing, especially for power users, who use applications relying on heavy calculations and gamers, who also use games relying heavily on the CPU. There's no way I'll be happy with 3DSMax09 w/ VRAY rendering on a 2GHz CPU. More applications are beginning to utilize more cores and it should be the norm in a couple of years. Just like almost everything can utilize dual core now, but it took a while for it to happen.

Intel and AMD already have low power CPUs, but according to physics it's not as easy to implement more voltage to a core and keep heat from increasing as well. Energy = heat, and the only thing they can do is keep looking for solutions.

I want laptops to come up with better cooling systems, I don't think manufacturers spend nearly enough time doing so. There's gotta be a solution to a good internal cooling system that allows me to run a quad-core without cooking an egg.

But to each his own, you want low-heat low-power-consumption low-noise, I want low-heat internally and high-number crunching. I WANT to say a low-power high-GHz CPU, but it's unrealistic today.

 

Solar powered CPU would be nice.

 

Thanks for the diagram lol

Theres really nothing much you can do other than increase the clockspeed and add more cores which isnt very good for notebooks battery life.

They are developing 32nm CPU's which will make them more efficient.

 

Gaming power. I don't care particuarly much about battery life, as I have my laptop plugged into a powerpoint 95% of the time.

 

I'm content with the speed of my T8100. I definitely don't need a quad core in my notebook, I barely use one to its potential in my desktop. I think the CPU should continue to use less power and get cooler. The major focus should be toward getting more powerful GPUs in notebooks as well as being able to upgrade them to at least the next generation.

 

I want a 12nm, 16 nonliner core, 5.2gHz CPU that runs at 15watts with an idle temp of 26 degrees and a max temp of 44 degrees

That should fulfill my every need for quite a while

 

I want a FPGA processor ... so that when the next version is ready, I would be able to pay online and download my next CPU architecture (rather than buying another MB and another CPU)

 

lol. 2 more years

 

better architecture with a single core and not at a high GHz. they can do it but they know that people like higher numbers.

 

A lot of power but still plenty of battery life.

Our first laptop - 666MHz Pentium 3 - next ones, 1,6 & 1,7GHz Pentium M (Centrino) then Pentium Dual Core 1,86GHz - and now Sony SZ with a T9300 - that'll last a while for me.
The first laptop was my mother's I then had the 1,6 and now the SZ - the other's are/were my mother's laptop too.

 

lower power consumption!

 

Well I think efficiency would be key in CPUs, hence why Intel is doing better than AMD. More performance for less power use is a quality I think CPUs in notebooks should strive to achieve. Having too much power and having the laptop burst into flames isn't a good thing lol

 

XD + rep.
(10char)

 

Smaller/smarter architecture (nm wise), faster clocks, and better power consumption.

 

Well, there is some good news today, Intel may be using its photonic technology inside its CPUs in 2010 which will increase performance and lower power comsumption and heat:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/12/08/intel-claims-photonics

I wonder if AMD has something to counter this technology?

Yeah, solar powered notebooks sound nice too.

 

Interesting, but I doubt we will see anything significant with this technology by 2010.

 

This thread reminds me of Star Trek. "Engage" .

 

Even if it isn't that significant it should be enough to bring a new generation of extremely quiet, and even silent, notebooks. That's enough to make me happy

 

For the mass market Dual Cores are more than enough. Quadcores should suffice for those who do real heavy multi-tasking.

For Processor they should focus more on:
1. Reducing Power - With Core 2 Duo Intel has made tremendeous strides in this area. They should build on this.
2. Improving single threaded performance. Do this by stuff like integrated memory controller, faster clock speeds without making architectures miss-steps like Pentium 4.

For Laptops manufacturers should focus more on:
1. Better sturdier design in general.
2. Better cooling which would also reduce size.
3. Better, Brighter and more Vibrant displays.

 

I'd like to see alot more l2 cache and bigger bandwith from the cpu

 

I will have to disagree with that one. My Sony SZ3 is so bright that it really hurts my eyes. Perhaps a way to display better colours without so much brightness would be nice.

 

Hmm... originally my SZ7 was too bright - now I use it on full brightness nearly all the time (basically all the time, except on battery)

 

man, I wanna have your problems

 

Get a decent LED panel. I can't turn up mine without it being too bright.

 

not one metioned the price !

 

As some have already mentioned, I'd like to see continuing improvement in the area of cooling/energy efficiency. Manufacturers don't pay enough attention and I think the prime reason is it's just simply too daunting a task.

 

Faster processors don't really increase gaming performance that much, do they? It's the gfx card mostly.

 

It depends on the game...

 

Indeed.
But I would personally prefer high speed multi-core cpu because I work in programs such as 3dsMax.

But ultimately ... I'd love a nanite based technology that can disassemble existing parts and rebuild them into entirely new one to stay on track with new advancement.
Go to bed one night, program the nanites to upgrade the entire notebook and voila.
8 hours later (or far less) you get a completely new system.

 

and while at it, let them rebuild the house and cloths and car and everything, so you never have to wash or clean or repair anything..

 

I'd also like to see this. At this point there really isn't that much that I use that can take advantage of multiple cores, so what I'd like more is a processor that's very fast for single-threaded stuff, rather than one that's got 64 cores and a mediocre per-core speed. Hence why if I were buying a desktop I'd buy an E8500 or E8600 instead of a Core i7 - for my purposes they're better 99% of the time.

Of course, a faster caching, memory, and hard disk system would improve performance by probably much more than a faster CPU in itself, but I'm sure if I had a 4.4 GHz Core 2 instead of a 2.2 GHz one I'd notice a difference at times.

More power efficiency would also be nice, but generally I put performance first. So what I'd really like is a CPU that can be really high-performing, but also power down very well - not one that's always low-power. I like AMD's idea in this respect of completely powering off a core (or multiple ones if they ever go beyond dual-core) - fits in nice with allowing lots of power and lots of power conservation.

 

Cleaning is most likely out of the question ... rebuilding the house, cloths, cars, etc ... is possible though, provided if you give them material to work with (say, older run down house, old cloths, old car ...).
That way they get all the material needed, disassemble it down to the base elements, and reconstruct into something new.
Howeverm, matter to energy (and vice versa) conversion tech would probably be more efficient.

 

I want a quantum computer!

 

well, more cores, and more speed is what sells. they don't care if there are no software that utilizes the current CPU potential.

besides, people like those #'s for the bling factor. my have a 3.2 quad core, and you have a puny little 2.2 celeron processor that runs on DOS.

 

I think the Core i7s are superior to the E8600 even in single-threaded applications most of the time.

What do I want... well, I want the current trends to continue. That is, I want them to get faster and cheaper while simultaneously becoming less power consuming. I also want programmers to start taking advantage of multiple cores because there are certain physics issues which in all likelihood will prevent single threaded performance from increasing too much beyond what it is now, but that's a different matter.

 

Core i7 965's are hitting 4.4 Ghz on air, that'll blow any current CPU away regardless of single, dual, or quad.

 

The one thing that makes me regret moving from desktops. I'm about to pay $450 to go from 2.1 to 2.8, which is nowhere close to as good as that.

 

The current trend I'm seeing moving out into the future is desktops + netbooks, it's less than the cost of a single gaming or media grade notebook, better top end performance (desktop), but much better portability (netbook). Did it myself (Haven't bought the netbook yet) and not looking back.

 

I've recently started to plan my soon-to-be (hopefully) i7 build, and I am realizing, how extremely weak laptop hardware truly is...

I'm regretting ever getting into laptops now, the desktop world is completely different and makes these things look like nothing =/...

Core i7 920 is a true quad can overclock to 4GHz+ on air, and here I am having trouble trying to keep my T9400 2.53Ghz from toasting itself.

 

Yeah even as more people buy notebooks, there is still quite a disparity in the specs. That's why I try to budget to have both around as my usage preferences change from time to time.

 

haha...such will always be the case for notebooks.....but sager has some pretty decent desktop replacement machines...

unfortunately i dont have the luxury of owning a desktop, i spend several months at a time in different countries...move around quite a bit..

i find 15 inch notebook is the best compromise for me as a main machine..although i cant enjoy the very latest games at maxed out settings....

 

I want a CPU that can take the job from 3D video card and does it faster. Too many laptops come with the fastest CPU in the market, but they are useless for playing games due to weak video card. My T9600 C2D 2.8 GHz CPU is currently the fastest in the market but it is useless for playing games due to its weak ATI 3470 card.

 

I don't want laptops dying out to be replaced by desktops - that would make this world even more senseless than it is to me.

Laptops need to exist - for example for the users who move around a bit (as above), for the people who need a lot of calculating power on the go "Maple for example...) and people who can't be bothered with a desktop.

Desktops have got quite a few disadvantages - space and portability being the main.

If you want these you need a laptop - for that you wish a lot of processing power - so more calculating power from a CPU would be nice - energy efficency is important too though.

 

Gaming on laptops is an uncomfortable thought, just think about the heat and noise the laptop would create. Currently, the best solution is offered by AMD with its external graphics box, which you can plug you laptop into for gaming. However, this can only use discrete notebook graphics at the moment, but naturally their next step will be towards desktop graphics!

Can you imagine, a portable box you can take around with you, and plug it in for a quick game, nice!

 

Well, the problem of laptops is that you have desktop enthusiasts who are trying to do what they normally do on a desktop, but rather, ON A LAPTOP.
>_>

It wouldn't be so bad if you could distinctly differentiate the two (as in the case of netbook/desktop), however, laptops are sorta in between... the jack of all trades, if you will. Good at everything (portability + power), but excels at nothing.

 

The reason for that is that the laptop was developed for business people.

I mean - if you buy a high end Desktop or even middle range desktop nowadays, without games, the power it has will suffice for decades.

Even laptops - in terms of Office work they'll suffice for years.

(I even used my old Pentium M 1,6GHz for 3 years)

Its games that let computers in general age - thus anything that isn't upgradeable in every little bit and piece will age.

Simple as that.

Think back - our Old Asus, a 666MHz Pentium 3 (laptop) was running Maple and doing stuff like Word too I believe...

Another problem with games is that their "demand for power" seems to increase - I don't know - exponetial to the power of an exponential...
e^(e^x)) style...

So todays CPUs are more than powefull enough for 99% of all users excluding gamers... (and maybe mathematicians who need to calculate those 1200 simoultaneous equations with million integer multiplication)

Honestly - think, what was the laptop designed to do, and think where it is now...

 

I want big improvements in every way possible. I love how I am going from 90nm in an Inspiron 9100 to 45nm in an EEE 901 to 32nm Westmere in a Sony or Dell 13".