Quote Originally Posted by god_43 View Post
i think that BD has been delayed and reworked long enough. they said bd will be here in q2....then bring the ing thing out in q2! idc what the issues are, if charlie is right and they just moved it back for strategic reasons, then that is unacceptable. its been in development for 7+ ing years man! i am just tired of trying to understand amd's plight, my next build will be an ivy-bridge system, i am done with amd.
BD has not been in developement for so long at all. AMD had at least two projects going before they started BD. They saw at an early stage that the chips wouldn't do so they started from scratch to avoid a Pentium 4 of their own. K9 and K10 was both scrapped. (No Phenom is not K10)

AMD don't have 10% of the resources Intel has. And in order to survive they have been forced to have several projects running at the same time. Bobcat, Llano and BD is three different large projects, that's three times more than anything they have done before. If people actually bought what was best between 1999 and 2006 AMD might had more R&D capacity today.

Quote Originally Posted by qcmadness View Post
30.9 mm^2 includes only 1 module and 2MB L2 cache.
If you expand to 4MB L2 cache as in post #1, you will need more die space.

And in post #1, only 40 mm^2 of die space is for I/O, I doubt it if you need to include 4 PCI-E links and a dual-channel MC.
If you switch to 2 modules with 2Mb cache per module you will have 2x 30.9 = 61.8mm for the cores and cache in a quadcore. That's still less than 4x 16 = 64mm for Llano. So if you just switch Llano cores with modules you will save space. With a bit more shaders Trinity will possibly be larger than Llano, but the guys who did the calculations in OP post are idiots.