Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
What I think would be perfect PD scenario for AMD is: ~5-10% higher IPC and 4-4.2Ghz base clock for top end model. This would put it in 16-28% range over 8150 ,a pretty good spot (over 2600/2700K on average and very close to 980/990x).
That's flawed logic. Being 30% behind in a bench is not the same thing as being 30% slower. BD needs much more than 28% more performance to match SB.


Quote Originally Posted by sergiojr View Post
Completely wrong. Frequencies are bottlenecked by both the process (AKA transistor switching speed) and architecture (AKA number of sequentially placed transistors on critical path). And resulting processor frequency is a result of division of the first by the second. Bulldozer significantly shortens critical path and so it's frequency is much higher than 32nm Llano within the same power budget. Or you should expect ~4,1 Gz base clock for imaginery 6-core 45nm Bulldozer within the power budget of 1100T.
Of course architecture matters, but what you don't take in to consideration is that frequencygains isn't linear. And over 4GHz the sacfrifices you have to do to gain each MHz isn't worth it at this point. You can't say that Bulldozer is more efficient than K10 or Llano, Bulldozer is less power efficient tha K10 on 45nm! Your comparision to Llano doesn't work since Llano has an integrated GPU, you don't know how much power the cores in Llano consumes and you don't know how the GPU affects the cores power consumption. If llano is made on a different kind of silicon to make the GPU work good enough then that could cripple energy efficieny in the cores.