1 |
Am 25.07.2012 22:14, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: |
2 |
> Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: |
3 |
>> I've listed what's available at the local store, |
4 |
>> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter |
7 |
>> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- |
8 |
>> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock, |
9 |
>> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> no |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
Lower transistor size gives you two advantages: Lower current (-> |
17 |
potentially lower power consumption and heat) and more transistors to do |
18 |
something. The practical effects depend on what the chip maker does with |
19 |
this. |
20 |
|
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) |
23 |
>> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in stock). |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> How do you compare cores vs nm ? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> who cares? |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
You cannot really compare this. If you can use more cores, e.g. because |
31 |
you have an embarrassingly parallel application, by all means, get it. |
32 |
Otherwise you should probably care more about single core performance. |
33 |
|
34 |
>> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? |
35 |
> |
36 |
> depends on the architecture. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
In short, for all three questions: Look at benchmarks and look at the |
40 |
TDP ratings if that is important to you. |
41 |
|
42 |
nm numbers don't tell you anything that can be directly translated into |
43 |
performance or other qualities. They only allow educated guesses. If you |
44 |
really want to delve so deep into chip design, you could as well look at |
45 |
pipeline depths, cache associativity and such alike (not that you should). |
46 |
|
47 |
Regards, |
48 |
Florian Philipp |