3 ms·
That's strange. Intel's 32nm Sandy Bridge 2600k is more energy efficient overall and has better single thread performance than AMD's 28nm FX-8350, while having
by cdi 14y ago
That's strange. Intel's 32nm Sandy Bridge 2600k is more energy efficient overall and has better single thread performance than AMD's 28nm FX-8350, while having almost equal multi-threaded performance.
- wtallis 14y agoAMD's FX-8350 is a 32nm part. I don't know to what extent one company's 32nm process can be better than another, but but if there is a difference, I'd expect Intel to have the advantage. Given that the AMD part has 1.2B transistors on a 315mm^2 die and the Intel part has 1.16B transistors on a 216mm^2 die, I'd say the fabrication node isn't the whole story. (Even Intel's quad-core Sandy Bridge E part is 1.27B transistors in 284mm^2)
- cdi 14y ago>FX-8350 is a 32nm part. My bad. >AMD part has 1.2B transistors on a 315mm^2 die and the Intel part has 1.16B transistors on a 216mm^2 die Yeah, I recently read somewhere that AMD significantly improved die area and power consumption of next FX cpu by using tools from graphics division. So it looks like the difference is not only in Intel's process advantage.
- wtallis 14y agohttp://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-s... Two generations away, but eventually we'll be seeing AMD processors that are denser and thus cheaper, but with potentially lower clock speeds. I suspect Intel's got the resources to do a much better job of laying out a chip, but it's hard to say whether that's a process advantage or a chip design advantage.