- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,784
- 136
Okay there was a forums topic about comparing Intel's and IBM's 90nm process. It suggests that 90nm process may not be the contributing factor(or not as much) as most people think.
Link: http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=115069088#TEXT
After reading look at my article, which is next paragraph. According to rumor(discussed even in Anandtech), Prescott's transistor count somehow doesn't up. Most people predicted its disabled transistors in Prescott. It's possible. Hyperthreading was apparently disabled in Willamette. Which was actually a good thing because performance loss would have been big with first-gen HT(for example the Xeons). Now its like, we can start a war about whether HT loses performance or not. I don't think EMT64(aka CT), or LaGrande will amount to much since 64-bit needs like 2% die and LaGrande, according to www.chip-architect.com pictures, it is a small portion of the die. So is write-combining buffers, branch prediction enhancements, 11 more pipeline stages and Trace cache improvements. Some transistors must be disabled, right? It's too many extra transistors that we don't know its functions. But first please look at the Aceshardware link.
You can't assume that power consumption is lower in the processors that have caches and logic disabled. Look at the Pentium III and the Pentium III core Celerons.
Link Celeron PIII: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=49&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Link Pentium III: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=25&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Both at 1GHz, both at 0.18 micron, both at 100MHz bus, both cDO stepping, both at 29.0 watts. Difference? Pentium III has higher L2 cache. That tells disabling the caches(and probably logic too) has no effect on wattage(Even though the cache consumes very little power, it consumes some power, so according the theory of most people, power consumption should be greater on the Pentium IIIs since it has more cache enabled). So yeah, according to the Aceshardware article(Yes I know its a rough estimate), Prescott is having more advantage by going to 0.09 micron than PowerPC does(or Intel has more advantage than IBM).
Want another link? Here look at P4 and P4 Celerons.
P4 Celeron link: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=49&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Pentium 4: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...cFam=483&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Again, both at 1.8GHz, both at 400MHz bus, both E0 stepping, AND both at 66.1W. Difference(Again)? L2 cache size. So, disabling transistors don't do anything to power consumption decrease(I don't like that fact but its true). Interesting Eh? Take time to read it and I would like to see some informative opinions about this topic.
Link: http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=115069088#TEXT
After reading look at my article, which is next paragraph. According to rumor(discussed even in Anandtech), Prescott's transistor count somehow doesn't up. Most people predicted its disabled transistors in Prescott. It's possible. Hyperthreading was apparently disabled in Willamette. Which was actually a good thing because performance loss would have been big with first-gen HT(for example the Xeons). Now its like, we can start a war about whether HT loses performance or not. I don't think EMT64(aka CT), or LaGrande will amount to much since 64-bit needs like 2% die and LaGrande, according to www.chip-architect.com pictures, it is a small portion of the die. So is write-combining buffers, branch prediction enhancements, 11 more pipeline stages and Trace cache improvements. Some transistors must be disabled, right? It's too many extra transistors that we don't know its functions. But first please look at the Aceshardware link.
You can't assume that power consumption is lower in the processors that have caches and logic disabled. Look at the Pentium III and the Pentium III core Celerons.
Link Celeron PIII: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=49&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Link Pentium III: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=25&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Both at 1GHz, both at 0.18 micron, both at 100MHz bus, both cDO stepping, both at 29.0 watts. Difference? Pentium III has higher L2 cache. That tells disabling the caches(and probably logic too) has no effect on wattage(Even though the cache consumes very little power, it consumes some power, so according the theory of most people, power consumption should be greater on the Pentium IIIs since it has more cache enabled). So yeah, according to the Aceshardware article(Yes I know its a rough estimate), Prescott is having more advantage by going to 0.09 micron than PowerPC does(or Intel has more advantage than IBM).
Want another link? Here look at P4 and P4 Celerons.
P4 Celeron link: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...ocFam=49&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Pentium 4: http://processorfinder.intel.com/sc...cFam=483&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
Again, both at 1.8GHz, both at 400MHz bus, both E0 stepping, AND both at 66.1W. Difference(Again)? L2 cache size. So, disabling transistors don't do anything to power consumption decrease(I don't like that fact but its true). Interesting Eh? Take time to read it and I would like to see some informative opinions about this topic.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram