Talk:Clock rate: Difference between revisions

Definition of Cycle

"A single clock cycle (typically lasting only a few nanoseconds in modern microprocessors) toggles between a logical zero and a logical one state."

This is a sloppy defintion; it should be recast in terms of clock edges (as in, edge-to-edge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.65.235 (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also out of date, 1 ns. is 1 GHz... 2 GhZ = 0.5 ns, modern microprocessors use sub-nanosecond clocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.17.130 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the section on Moore's Law, as it relates to transistor count, not clock speed. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:39:21, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Yick... This article is another microelectronic PC-centric mess. Anyone who wants to help improve it would be much appreciated... If not I'll fix this up shortly after I finish working on the Central processing unit article. -- uberpenguin 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed the statement about the clock having a longer "zero" time than a "one" time, but the article seems to be oriented to those who would seek to overclock a chip. Overclocking has nothing to do with binning. However, it results in changes in signal integrity, power consumption, heat dissipation, packaging limitations, reliability, etc. Power relates to I2R power losses in the chip interconnect which complicates signal integrity and reliability of the chip. Its an engineering thing - you might not understand. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this redirects here? Processing power has different meaning. kuszi 19:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, a high clock rate does not necessarily mean power. How should the page on processing power be if it would no longer redirect here? Geekosaurus 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the commenters here too. Processing power is controlled by more than just clock rate. Needs work. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to me that this should be part of clock signal, as it is a property of something with clock signals (if this makes any sense). Geekosaurus 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should mention how the speed of light ensure we'll never have Petahertz chips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlj7 (talk • contribs)

Why is that so?? Realg187 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing goes faster than c. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It's just that it's impossible (with current theory) to send data faster than the speed of light due to special relativity. Anyway, that's pedantic for the purposes of this article. -- mattb @ 2006-12-14T00:07Z

Assuming a maximum signal path of 1 millimetre, the maximum clock rate assuming c as the propagation rate (which is idealistic) is about 300 GHz. If you wanted to be really pedantic, the limit for any electronic clock rate is limited by the Compton wavelength of the electron to about 123 exahertz. It gets much worse if you try more than one electron at once. :P --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its dumb how they dont say the clock rates, consumers have the right to know!!! I have a program that tells it very accuatly like to 3 deciamal places ex, instead of 232 or 233 it'll say 232.9!! Realg187 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Modern consumer microprocessors? If so, the rate is available, just no longer in the name. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clock rate is the fundamental rate in cycles per second (measured in hertz) at which a computer performs its most basic operations such as adding two numbers or transferring a value from one processor register to another. Different chips on the motherboard may have different clock rates. Usually when referring to a computer, the term "clock rate" is used to refer to the speed of the CPU."

I'm pretty sure clock rate applies to any digital logic, not just computers. But I'm not bold enough to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.27.40 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking to find out what limits a chips clock rate, but it's not here. I want to know what problems too high a clock rate causes and why it causes those problems.

 Done. We now have a section clock rate#Limits to clock rate.

This section is very poorly written, and also inaccurate. As I understand it, overclocking does not involve physically replacing anything, as the section suggests. I considered fixing the grammar and wording, but didn't want to risk introducing inaccuracies, since I really don't know all that much about overclocking. Would someone knowledgeable please look at this section? 192.5.109.49 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about people overclocking a modern desktop computer. Those people don't actually physically replace clock crystals -- instead, they use BIOS settings to set registers on the clock generator chip.

However, I've added a reference to WP:VERIFY that, in some cases, overclocking does in fact involve physically replacing clock crystals, and that physically replacing something is the only way to overclock some desktop computers. It may be misleading, but it is not inaccurate. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clarifying it, it sure raises a question while reading the article.

--93.172.97.251 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rate need not be measured this way. The means of measurement is independent of the rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This abbreviation appears without expansion or explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikilink. Totsugeki (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more power efficient processors and more heat controlled materials to build transistors from,

it could be better if this sentence could be referred with a profound article...
regards..--93.173.154.6 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]