Pro tip: this is an English-language forum.
The scores are incredibly broken even neglecting the uselessness of the benchmark.. how does a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo score twice higher than a 2GHz Core 2 Duo?
You need to relax your accuracy detection a little bit and just use some common sense. Look at the numbers and discard the ones that don't make sense instead of making them proof of the whole benchmark being broken.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
Yeah, cuz that approach doesn't reek of confirmation bias, not at all...
You can just look at the actual numbers and see a clear pattern where faster cpu's beat slower ones.
When I wrote about discarding the results I meant the kind of results that exophase mentioned - not discarding the results that made one side look better. If a 2.4 GHz cpu beats a 2 GHz cpu one of the results is probably wrong yeah? - so you need to look at the results around it to see what is more likely to be wrong. Did i say common sense? Maybe it's not as common as I wish it was.
Depends on the accurancy of your whole calculation. My physics teacher in school was very keen on the the significant figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures ) in the calculations.If I tell you Pi() = 2.756, you would tell me I was wrong. If I then told you Pi() = 5.342, you would tell me I was still wrong.
If you have bad/imprecise data, then I would say that "Pi equals 3" would be a very good approximation and that it will still be useful to calculate with it.You wouldn't tell me "well, one of those two numbers is probably right, so let's go with the smaller one, common sense tells me 2.756 is probably the right answer"...would you?
Yes, but a "guesstimation" is not a science ;-)In science we have a saying - fit the theory to the facts, not the facts to the theory.
I tend to use worst cases in such situations, i.e. use the very best numbers of the competition and assume that the result in question is also a very good one.What you are doing, your special version of "common sense", is you are cherry picking and filtering the data such that what remains fits and conforms to your theory of what you expect the results to be.
Further, the process by which you select your data (while discarding the inconvenient data) is going to be tainted by confirmation bias.
Technical numbers :“We have started volume shipments of Kabini in the first quarter and have a strong portfolio of high volume entry-level design wins based on its substantial performance and battery life improvements,” said Rory Read, chief executive officer of AMD
Temash looks good...“This year we will have the broadest range of mobile processors in our history spanning from sub-4W to 35W.
What matters for the near future :
Technical numbers :
Temash looks good...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...o_Ship_Low_Power_Kabini_APUs_for_Revenue.html
What matters for the near future :
Technical numbers :
Temash looks good...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...o_Ship_Low_Power_Kabini_APUs_for_Revenue.html
That is good. Means 28nm is getting off the ground.
Now if only they'd get piledriver ported to 28nm, be it a dumb shrunk type affair or a reworked steamroller core. They need their fat cores to get put on a die-size and power-consumption diet. Piledriver on 28nm process would be nice. Kabini's power numbers show us the 28nm process is good for that.
He is the CEO of amd. What is he supposed to say "our cpus are crap and no OEM wants to: use them"?
Kabini may in fact be a fine product. Point is, the CEO of and is hardly an objective observer.
That is good. Means 28nm is getting off the ground.
Now if only they'd get piledriver ported to 28nm, be it a dumb shrunk type affair or a reworked steamroller core. They need their fat cores to get put on a die-size and power-consumption diet. Piledriver on 28nm process would be nice. Kabini's power numbers show us the 28nm process is good for that.
What matters for the near future :
Technical numbers :
Temash looks good...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...o_Ship_Low_Power_Kabini_APUs_for_Revenue.html
That is good. Means 28nm is getting off the ground.
Now if only they'd get piledriver ported to 28nm, be it a dumb shrunk type affair or a reworked steamroller core. They need their fat cores to get put on a die-size and power-consumption diet. Piledriver on 28nm process would be nice. Kabini's power numbers show us the 28nm process is good for that.
On a perf/mm2 perspective Piledriver is not competitive
with Jaguar even at the same node , given that perf/watt
matters more than anything else in mobile it is better to focus
on Jaguar and apparently Mr Read target the mainstream/entry
level markets of whatever use a CPU or APU.
Bobcat stopped around 1,75ghz right? and people that overclocked them, usually didnt get them higher than 2,4ghz.
I dont think Jaguar's will go much higher, even at 28nm vs 40nm of bobcat.
Highest Id think these will come out at is probably there abouts 2.5ghz or something.
here is a bobcat (E-350 from 1.6ghz-> @2.36ghz) (stock aircooling motherboard came with):
Well we don't really know how big Piledriver would be on TSMC 28nm. I've said it before, but I'm pretty convinced that the potential for density can be pretty different across different nodes even if they're using the same name..
For example you can find Cortex-A9s that take up less area on TSMC's 40nm (or even 45nm, I've heard) than on Samsung's 32nm. This could be down to physical implementation but I doubt that alone is so hugely different. You can compare L2 caches and the like in this regard too. I expect GF's process to be more similar to Samsung's than TSMC's. Not going to say anything definitively one way or the other, I just think it can't be assumed that they'd have similar density.
- The 28nm FD-SOI generation, currently in the industrialization phase, is scheduled to be available for prototyping by July 2012.
- The next node, the 20nm FD-SOI generation, is currently under development and is scheduled to be ready for prototyping by Q3 2013.
28nm FD-SOI Process Design Kit (PDK) is available now, targeting risk production by mid-2012. Evaluation SPICE models are now available for the 20nm node, and full PDK is scheduled by end of 2012, with risk production for 13Q3