SiliconWars
Platinum Member
- Dec 29, 2012
- 2,346
- 0
- 0
The FCH on Brazos was made at 40nm or 65nm ??
Edit: I believe its a 65nm part. If it is 28mm2 at 65nm, at 28nm it could be less than 10mm
Yep it's 65nm.
The FCH on Brazos was made at 40nm or 65nm ??
Edit: I believe its a 65nm part. If it is 28mm2 at 65nm, at 28nm it could be less than 10mm
The FCH on Brazos was made at 40nm or 65nm ??
Well then,
Even if at 28nm is 10mm2 + 75mm2 = 85mm
114mm2 is 34% larger than 85mm,
Graded Jaguar cores are 10% larger than Bobcat at 28nm but that would not translate for that die difference. I dont know but either they put 128-bit memory or more SPs.
I dont have another explanation
Brazos+FCH at 28nm would be around 45-50mm, right? So accounting for non-perfect scaling, 2 CUs, andm4 bigger cores, Jaguar sounds to be about the right size.
All this extra would seem like it would need more bandwidth though...
no it doesn't, single vs dual chip solution
So if Glofo manage only 1% yield AMD would have to pay
the chips accordingly..?..
You are not serious....or clueless.
It's more costly to produce one large chip than two small ones.
It's more costly to produce one large chip than two small ones.
The other way around, what it is showing is just how poorly unoptimized the existing automated designs are.
Are today's automobiles ridiculously fuel efficient, or is it just that yesterday's automobiles were ridiculously fuel inefficient?
well that depends on the yield curve, which we have no idea what its like for bobcat or jaguar based SOC's. but either way its not going to be twice the price. The MB's are going to be simpler so they can sell at a increased price relitive to bobcat without affecting OEM's margins or RRP.
So everybody makes out but the consumer . I like that kind of thinking it has gotten us to were we are today.
Graded Jaguar cores are 10% larger than Bobcat at 28nm but that would not translate for that die difference. I dont know but either they put 128-bit memory or more SPs.
I dont have another explanation
The other way around, what it is showing is just how poorly unoptimized the existing automated designs are. Are today's automobiles ridiculously fuel efficient, or is it just that yesterday's automobiles were ridiculously fuel inefficient?
And yet this is the first time you've seemed to favor consumers, previously claiming, intel for example, was awesome for charging consumers as much as possible. Besides, his point was that OEM's could maintain margins without increasing consumer cost.
p.s. unless you were penning sarcasm.
Really...And what is GloFo's defect density for you to make claims like this?
That a matter of perspective . My dad bought me my first car . LOL With blown engine. We completely overhauled the motor to better than new specs . It was an inline six 59 impala . When we were all done it averaged 17 miles to a gallon about 20 miles pg highway.
I could fill the 22 gallon tank for less than 20 dollars . gase pricies varied between 26 cents a gallon 30 cents . Best car I ever owned and than a drunk destroyed while it was parked. I would take that car over many modern cars that are speced for 30 + mpg that never comes close to those mpg rating . Honesty died along time ago . I would take the same $1.25 an hour also over a $30 dollar hour job to day if the pricies to day were the same as than . A new car $1800 $22oo for a musle car . I house sold for around 30 that today is $300.000 . Comparing today with yesterday . I take yesterday . People were better . Charity was great and it was charity without pay . not today . Everybody gets payed now adays . Ice cream cone double 10 cents single a 5 cents . Had they not scewed the cost of living numbers . that same dollar 25 cents today would be about 45 dollars an hour .
I only ment that it helped, as it was shown on past slides from AMD that they found ways that it could make things tighter. Maybe it was partially done, maybe it wasn't at all. If not, how does that explain Richland!?
And cars today are averagely more fuel efficient, not as much as some other unique ones but there is an oil business and all. Same way how Intel is not using the GT3 on the desktop. Why would they NOT do such a thing?
What is not known is just how "sub-optimal" a modern sythesized layout is compared to a modern hand-layout IC. And once you factor in budget constraints, a synthesized layout may actually fare better than a hand-layout IC if you can't afford to hire enough people to do the hand-layout job decently.
(cut too many corners and you can make anything be the crappiest way to go )
In general though it is widely accepted that if you are operating with an appropriately resourced layout team then the layout job when done by hand will yield superior results to that achieved by an optimal synthesis layout (however this is a moving goalpost because synthesis tools are advancing at a pace comparable to Moore's law whereas the pace of advancements in hand-layout is much more human-like).
It all comes down to how well resourced the hand design project was.I'm very skeptical that hand design buys you anything at all for many design points. In my personal experience, automated designs were no slower, but much smaller. You can also look to ARM: Cortex A8 had a bunch of structured datapaths, but as performance of their subsequent cores improved, automation increased and manual intervention decreased. I think there's also a paper from one of the companies involved with Cell (Toshiba?) showing that they saved area and gained performance by switching to automated design. For something like POWER7 with a 32KB, 2-cycle L1 cache at >3GHz (holy crap!), sure, maybe that has to be designed by hand...but most things? I don't think so.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
It all comes down to how well resourced the hand design project was.
Would you agree that humans could replicate an automated design if you simply hired enough of them and gave them enough time to get there? (in the academic argument, the infinite monkey theorem)
I'm not in any way arguing in any of my posts in this thread that hand-coded design bests automated design...I am saying there are obvious resourcing caveats that have to come into the discussion if there is to be any sort of apples-to-apples comparison made.
Under-resource any hand design team and you will surely get something far less optimal than that obtainable with the same resources enabling an automated design team.
Over-resource any automated design team and you will surely get something no better than that obtainable with the same resources enabling a hand-layout team. (since in the limit of infinite optimization loops - be it cpu cycles or humans - they both will end up solving the same "traveling salesman" problem)
And I argue that the switch-over point in that trade-off equation will forever be increasing towards favoring the automated design team. (meaning comparable funding for the automated team remains inferior to funding a hand-design team, the funding level for parity increases every year in favor of automated design)
The R&D team has largely been unaffected by the layouts ranging from 2000 to 2013.