AMD Ontario APU pictured,die size ~77mm^2

[savantu]

You want mine? 70%. Im not here to see who was right or wrong in 4 months, might be you or me or neither of us, we'll know that in time. However, let me paste the case you pointed out again:



So over here, the TDP is the same, performance is the same (by your predictions), and Bobcat has a much faster GPU. Clean win I would say, atleast in this case?
So is AMD superior to Intel in this occasion ? Or are you having a hard time admitting it? Or are you gonna say we cant predict the performance of Bobcat's GPU, the Atom's might be superior? You also completely ignored by next paragraph, let me paste it again for you:

Clear win indeed. The higher you go in power the bigger the gap between Bobcat and Atom. Conversely, the lower you go, the opposite happens, until Bobcat can no longer compete ( sub 5w ).

Just once thing to communicate.

@savantu

I know which slide you're talking about and making big fuss.
AMD claimed sub 1W capable for Bobcat CORE (single processing core without IMC and the rest). You're simply stretching that a bit too much and implying they meant APU which is simply not true.
So leakage of single Bobcat core is a lot lower than 1W which you can't comprehend. Leakage of whole Ontario or Zacate APU is higher than 1W which we all know/can accept.

So now we're moving from CPU power to core power. What's next ? They'll put forward FPU and ALU power ?
If an APU has disabled everything else except one core and the IMC, by using power gating technology, you should not have a difference compared to the single core.

PS. Please show me slide in which AMD claimed they are targeting Smartphone market with this core.

Well, none. Because they know they can't. Which also means they know it is not "sub 1 w capable" , at least in its current generation.

No, they are saying that Bobcat (40nm) has sub 1W capable cores.
They specifically say that the entire Ontario System-On-Chip is designed
for the netbook segment and the value/mainstream notebook segment
and that it wasn't designed with tablets in mind and certainly not for
smart phones.

And you're telling me the core burns sub 1w and the IMC is over 2w ?

No, the difference between driving 64bit GDDR3 and GDDR5 (P2P) is 2W TDP
for example. You are comparing a retired device which didn't even had a
memory interface but a 400MHz FSB instead against a 64bit DDR3 bus at
1033MHz which needs to be able to drive multiple SODIMMS.

So according to you, memory I/O is the main culprit for high power consumption.