| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike
Registered User
Joined: 23 Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1759
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| KopiKat wrote: | Yorkfield is not a new architecture, it's simply a "dumb-shrink" to 45 nanometers. That means Yorkfield is just a 45nm quad core Kentsfield. Not a "new architecture" by any means. AMD's K8L is a new architecture in every respect, it has new instruction sets, new SSE, new load-store mechanisms, a new type of cache (see Z-Ram), quad core, and 65 nm to boot. It's pretty much a complete redesign of K8. I have heard differently that K8l is slated for Q2 2007, which is somewhere between 6 to 9 months from now. That's the new architecture.
The current stuff to look forward to is AMD's K8 @ 65nm die process. It's same old K8, but shrunk down to 60% of the size. Intel got a 40% performance gain out of it's 65 nm shrink based on P3 architecture, and while not immediately, the same will be the case for the 65nm shrink of K8. Roughly 40% less power used, and about a 40% increase over old 90nm K8's.
Apples to oranges, with respect to Yorkfield and K8L.
Intel is quite a ways off from any "new" architecture. It's not even on the road map yet.
-KK |
I'm pretty sure that any change in size that big requires a redesign, as i've heard amd reps say. Yorkfeild is a true quad core where all of the cores interact properly as apposed to kentsfeild which is just 2 conroes glued together. That would probably require quite a bit of changes along with the size difference.
_________________
R.I.P. Blue |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KopiKat
Registered User
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 923
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't necessarily require a change in architecture to shrink a processor.
For example: The Penium 4 architecture didn't change at all when it shrank to 90nm from 130nm, it's still the same as it was before.
The Yorkfield will not be two conroes glued together, that much is correct, however it will be two conroes, just on the same die. In essence, a smaller amount of glue was used, and the architecture remains the same.
Intel hasn't actually changed their architecture in many many years (around 10 to be exact). Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest is really just a ramped up Pentium 3 architecture.
Their architecture redesign is a year or more in the future.
-KK
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Registered User
Joined: 23 Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1759
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KopiKat wrote: | It doesn't necessarily require a change in architecture to shrink a processor.
For example: The Penium 4 architecture didn't change at all when it shrank to 90nm from 130nm, it's still the same as it was before. |
I remember an amd rep said that you cant shrink 90nm to 65nm, thats why they only went to 80nm because you can just map it out in 90nm and shrink it. I guess it depends.
| KopiKat wrote: |
The Yorkfield will not be two conroes glued together, that much is correct, however it will be two conroes, just on the same die. In essence, a smaller amount of glue was used, and the architecture remains the same.
Intel hasn't actually changed their architecture in many many years (around 10 to be exact). Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest is really just a ramped up Pentium 3 architecture.
Their architecture redesign is a year or more in the future.
-KK |
small modifications over time seems to be working for them (currently at least). I could care less what architecture new chips use, as long as they preform well and keep getting new features that are useful.
_________________
R.I.P. Blue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
