Thuban 6cores has 346mm^ and a TDP of 125W but on 45nm.
On 32nm should have 240-260mm^, see Lynnfield 296mm^(45nm) -> and SB 216mm^ with IGP(32nm).
So it's quite posible that a Thuban with 8 cores and let sau 8MB L3 cache + 8MB L2 cache on 32nm to have 330-346mm^.
And the TDP why should be biger if the die size is the same, and may be the number of the tranzistors would be the same.
And if i remeber AMD launched a Phenom X4 960/965 at 140W TDP so what is the problem. Next revision will fix it.
The performance is more important.
Because an architecture of cpu's waited for 3-4 years, fails to beat the mainstream of Intel.How is BD a "fail?"
They are no threat to even 2010 Intel hexa cores and now it's soon 2012.
Because AMD remains again in the back.
Because they had the performance of SB from january or even earlier, they delay 3-4 months and they couldn't do anything to improve much more the performance to at least equal SB 2600K.
Because marketing BD as an 8core is just lame to be equal to an intel quad.
I would have been less harsh if they would have called a quad with 8 threads.
Anyway i'm waisting my time trying to convince some hard AMD fans.
When IB cames, all FX 8XXX will fall under 200$, as Thuban when SB appeared.
So, we will be back with two generation as usually.




Reply With Quote
Bookmarks