Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Intel Penryn 40% faster?
|
cks2k2
|
 Apr 18 2007, 10:14 AM
|
|
QUOTE(Thunderbolt @ Apr 18 2007, 02:12 AM) The extra boost came from the switch from 60 nanometers to 45nm and by using "high-k metal gate" transistors  Got nothing to do with cache, extra cores  Hi-k affects leakage; it's the minor tweaks to the core that boosts the performance. QUOTE(Radeon @ Apr 18 2007, 09:50 AM) current core 2 quad is fake this one will be the real one, lets see how it will do against out longly waited agena Is there a difference between "fake" and "true" quad? BTW the correct term is non-monolithic and monolithic. |
|
|
|
|
|
cks2k2
|
Apr 18 2007, 11:40 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(c38y50y70 @ Apr 18 2007, 09:42 PM) It is a minor tweaked core compared to Kentsfield. It shines only in FP and stream related applications. The other might have very little performance boost only, especially on applications which do a lot of context switchings and branches. The new power management isn't that good too as compared with Barcelona. However, it should can put up a good fight with Barcelona. I've seen some pretty interesting power management stuff on Nehalem...  |
|
|
|
|
|
cks2k2
|
Apr 24 2007, 11:40 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(charge-n-go @ Apr 24 2007, 10:35 AM) there is no 'true' and 'fake' quad. If a CPU has 4 physical cores in the same package, it is a quad core. Intel uses non-monolithic approach to simplify the design with some sacrifice in performance, while AMD uses monolithic approach to have higher performance but takes longer time to design. I would say design time would be pretty much the same - it's the manufacturing that's the problem. 4-cores in 1 die == larger die size == higher defect potential. Also larger die size == less dies per wafer == less cost effective. Binning will be another problem -> you can only sell at the lowest common clock speed. MCM makes sense until you move to a mature smaller process. |
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0186sec
0.40
7 queries
GZIP Disabled