AMD "Piledriver" refresh of Zambezi - info, speculations, test, fans

[TESKATLIPOKA]

2. perf/mm2
Savantu did pretty much the same calculations
4M/8C BD FX 8150, 32nm, 315mm2
6C Thuban, 45nm, 346mm2
Ideal shrink: 346*(32^2/45^2)= 175mm2

http://www.xtremehardware.it/images/..._die_Llano.jpg
LLano ~228mm2
The link shows you a Llano die shot, If you remove the IGP and add what you want with the same amount of cache you will end up with something like this
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5651/002diellano.jpg
and that is ~210-220mm2.
I used a 6C Llano on 32nm with the same amount of cache as Thuban.
And now back to perf/mm2
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T [3.3 GHz, 6 core, Turbo] 100%
AMD FX-8150 [3.6 GHz, 4 Module, CMT, Turbo] 108%
Llano vs Deneb on average from this link is 3.23% better, I had to do an average value, what a hassle
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/403?vs=85
so its 103.23% vs 108% add the 3MB L3 cache and you have ~105% but you are still under BD performance not to mention the same problem as before with the mix of differently threaded applications.
So the reality is not 2x as you said but rather 315/210=1.5, so better by 50% but BD performs better.

3. frequencies
APU 32nm
AMD-3850 A8 [2.9 GHz, 4 cores] no turbo
ES model Trinity 2M/4C 3.8Ghz turbo 4.1Ghz
CPUs
45nm AMD Phenom II X4 980 [3.7 GHz, 4 cores] no turbo
45nm AMD Phenom II X6 1100T [3.3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo, AM3 +] turbo 3.6Ghz
32nm AMD FX-4100 [3.6 GHz, 2 modules, CMT, turbo] turbo 3.9Ghz
32nm AMD FX-6100 [3.3 GHz, 3 modules, CMT, turbo] turbo 3.9Ghz

As you can see IGP doesn't affect the cpu frequencies if it affected it then you wouldn't see Trinity with the same speed as classic cpu models without any IGP, it only affects TDP because some needs to be reserved for IGP so you need to lower default clocks but turbo can make up for it if IGP is idling.
Basically K10 on the same process can't work on the same frequencies while staying in the same TDP, Llano drawing the same or more than a higher clocked BD(default +25%, turbo +34%) in Linpack(IGP is power gated).

I never said anything about 6core Llanos. You are using straw man arguments here. Why do you feel that you need such tricks?

really and what is this

I think it's fairly safe that Thuban would reach a bit higher frequencies at early 32nm at almost half the size of BD, and with BDs or Llanos better IMC and Llanos IPC improvements it would already there equal a few hundred MHz extra performance. There you have at least 10% higher performance than Thuban at almost half the size of BD, and that with plenty of headroom to grow in!

I think thats a 6C Llano, of course I meant without IGP. I don't think I am using straw man arguments here.

Deneb and Llano isn't interesting here, I talk Thuban, and Thuban has higher performance per watt than BD? How do you think Thuban on 32nm would perform?

Why not? you never said just Thuban, you said Phenom 2

"Phenom II has higher performance per watt, twice(!) the performance per mm² (taking processes in to account)."

Deneb is also Phenom II and I wanted to compare Llano what is practically a better Deneb vs BDs on the same 32nm node.
Which Thuban you mean?, just a shrink or Thuban based on Llano cores? In my opinion frequencies would be lower at the current 32nm compared to 45nm.
I still don't know what good is talking about something what will be never released.