Llano was never designed to clock 20% higher, or higher at all for that matter. Give AMD some time, and I think they'll show us a pretty darn good architecture out of Piledriver. Since the Core 2 release, all CPU architectures from Intel have been practically flawless (including Ivy Bridge aside from its overclockability). I just think it's a result of AMD having nowhere near the R&D capabilities that Intel does. I don't think the architectural change is inherently flawed. Piledriver is already starting to show us approximately what Bulldozer is capable of. It runs hot, performs nowhere near its competition, and consumes way more power than it should. And, by the 5000 series, we saw a really great, efficient, and powerful architecture (that has nothing to do with me owning a 5850 btw).īulldozer is a dog. By the 3000 series, you began to see the 2900 performance, just without the heat and power consumption, but by the 4000 series you began to see a real player in the market. It was slower, ran hotter, and consumed more power than its competition. What would the drawbacks to the above units be, though? A 35% jump in performance would've put AMD in a pretty competitive place.Īlthough completely different architectures, the way I look at it is take the Radeon 2900, right? While somewhat revolutionary in its own right, it was a downright dog overall. Now: is there some obvious reason AMD opted against this? I understand that including extra instruction sets (AVX, SSE4, AES) and additional cache require a larger die, as does adding additional cores. Could K10 not reliably scale further? Had clocks increased by 20% on a 32nm shrink, parts would ship at 4 GHz for six-core models and 4.5 GHz for quad-cores.Ī 20% clock increase would bring the total increase in speed to 35%. What about clock speed? At 45nm, K10 regularly hit 4 GHz. Overclocking the CPU-NB to 2.6 GHz yields around a 7.5% performance gain on average.Ĭombine those on a single CPU and you have something about 13% faster than a Phenom II at equal clocks. Llano brought roughly 5% increase in IPC as a result of core tweaks. There's been plenty of conjecture on what an upgraded K10 could do, but I've always thought there had to be a reason AMD abandoned it.
0 kommentar(er)
