Those 2 things aren't exclusive.Originally Posted by grunge100
Individual OCs say virtually nothing about what AMD can crank out of the 65nm process.
AMD's 65nm process was optimized for low power , not speed.As a result 65nm K8 isn't able to match 90nm K8 in top frequency , at least not yet( probably never will ) .
As a rule of thumb a shrink is able to do 20% better than the previous process size at the same power.
3-3.2GHz 90nm 125w -> 3.6-3.8GHz 65nm 125w
AMD is stuck at under 2.8GHz.
See more here :http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...leID=196701745Interestingly, this first application of 65-nm technology was designed not to improve performance over the previous, 90-nm Athlon, but to reduce power consumption.
The tradeoffs involved in keeping leakage under control = slow transistors speed , difficult to reach higher frequencies.
Dirk Meyer says something interesting :IMO , they cover the flaws of the process with the design of the chip , as to minimize them. ( same as Thoroughbred days , they added more layers , etc )The issue has been simply one of tuning the design to the technology so as to support a high volume ramp.
K10 has excellent power usage when running at low speed , once you crank up the speed the power usage goes through the rough ( slower , thicker transistors need more voltage , remember the 1.52V 2.5GHz sample ? ).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks