4 ms·
Methinks the point is to survive & solidify the transition to the new manufacturing tech before going whole-hog on capability improvements. Such is the nature o
by ctdonath 15y ago
Methinks the point is to survive & solidify the transition to the new manufacturing tech before going whole-hog on capability improvements. Such is the nature of Intel's "tick-tock" development cycles: get fundamental and boring changes down cold before showing what awesomeness can come of them.
- wmf 15y agoBut a new process is at least supposed to provide 30% more performance even without awesomeness, not 10%.
- pmjordan 15y agoLet's check that claim for the 65nm -> 45nm transition of the Core2Duo. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Allendale.22.2C_.22Conroe.22_.2865_nm.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microproce... The fastest 65nm Core2Duo with 65W TDP was the 3.0GHz E6850, released in July 2007. The first batch of 45nm CPUs was released in January 2008, the fastest one being the 3.17GHz E8500. A whopping 6% clock speed improvement, though admittedly the cache size grew from 4MB to 6MB. Bus speed stayed the same. I doubt that resulted in a 30% performance improvement overall, 10-15% seems more likely. They followed up with some significantly faster CPUs a few months later, and I suspect they will do so with Ivy Bridge, too.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]