A theory yes, not a hypothesis. BD wouldn't be possible on 45nm, but it is on 32nm. The fact that their 32nm is capable of BD is proof enough that it's not crap, it might not be the best around, but it's good enough.Originally Posted by Oliverda
No one has yet showed any proof that 32nm is that bad, that BD is alive and kicking is proof enough that 32nm works. Thuban is not nearly as hard to produce as BD, so if you can make BD, then Thuban would be easy. Thuban would probably be below 200mm˛.
For me the existence of beasts like Llano and BD is proof enough that 32nm is way better than 45nm, and Thuban would be better off at 32nm.
Not proof at all! Is locked SB's proof that Intels 32nm sucks because they don't overclock? No! Llano suffers from similar problems since they aren't unlocked, and what worse is, you can't lock frequencies like PCIe. We have no clue what Llano would clock like if it was unlocked. Besides the integrated GPU isn't made for that kind of processes, which means there will be tradeoffs in process choice when making it on die. The proof we do have is that Llano consumes 5-20W less power than comparable Athlon II in different tests, and that with an extra GPU in the test for the Llano! What does that say about GloFos 32nm? It's better than 45nm!
So, you have no valid proof whatsoever that CPUs fare worse on 32nm than 45nm. I on the other hand have numbers that show lower power consumption, and the fact that BD exists is a strong indicator that a much simpler chip would perform quite well on 32nm.
There are few tests that compare Athlon II with Llano, here is one, it's in swedish but I hope you understand charts.
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension...no/25#pagehead
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks