3 ms·
It's right there in the article: 1.35x. That sounds like raw speed though, with actual changes probably depending more on what people do with the new technology
by sambe 7y ago
It's right there in the article: 1.35x. That sounds like raw speed though, with actual changes probably depending more on what people do with the new technology.
- baq 7y agoarticle and slides don't give baselines for those percentages: is it 35% more at fixed frequency? fixed power?
- sambe 7y ago" The headline PPA values that Samsung is announcing are also impressive: compared to 7nm, 3GAE will offer 1.35x performance, 0.5x power, with a 0.65x die area." ... Samsung states that these performance numbers are based on using larger width cells for critical paths where frequency is important, and smaller width cells for non-critical paths where power savings are crucial. Technically Fmax of the widest cells is listed as 1.5x, while power at Fmax is 0.6x. Power at iso-performance is where the 0.5x number comes from." I don't think 35% at fixed frequency makes sense; 35% is the frequency boost (with power savings too).
- donnietb 7y agoIt is a comparison against a 7nm along with 0.65 area die reduction. Current Nvidia is 12 nm I believe, so the question si what is the possible pixel count bump.