3 ms·
> Efficiency, performance and cost are strongly related to density. Price less so; that's a function of supply and demand. They are related, of course, but the
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> Efficiency, performance and cost are strongly related to density. Price less so; that's a function of supply and demand.
They are related, of course, but the important stuff can be measured more directly by looking at how well programs work on a given computer. I think it's just a little odd to praise one cherry-picked, arbitrary metric for being less game-able than another cherry-picked, arbitrary metric. Especially when we have metrics to hand that are a lot closer to what real people care about in a computer. I certainly have never shopped for a CPU based on the number of transistors, but I have made purchasing decisions based on things like cinebench and passmark scores, which try to get at what ultimately matters to me (i.e. how many FPS a CPU will drive in the games I play).
- ummonk 6y agoAre you asserting performance benchmarks aren't gameable?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoNo.
- Someone 6y agoThat magazines, sites and fans started using density for bragging rights, just as they used to do with MHz, certainly isn’t fully the fault of manufacturers. Manufacturers use “x nm”, yield (a metric correlated with price, but also completely uninteresting for consumers), etc. because they tell chip designers what they need to know. They avoid benchmark scores because they bring the CPU design in the picture as a variable.
- topspin 6y agoIt's a story from a site that focuses on fabrication technology and the semiconductor market place. The topic is device density. This is of interest, even if it doesn't interest you.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI appreciate that it's of interest to some people. So is the node figure you denigrated in your original post, though.
- topspin 6y agoDoubtless. Angelic visitation is interesting to some people. Those and "node" figures have about the same value and credibility.