Well the 4770K has a quite large iGPU too. So since you still make such a statement, how many percent of the 4770K die area is occupied by iGPU? And similarly for the A10-7850K die?
You compare apples and oranges. GPU part is more dense by nature. Much more. As example before, Pitcairn 212mm2 2.8B. Or 13.2M/mm2 by your math.
Remember the APU on 32nm GloFo? 1.3B/246mm2. Or 5.2M/mm2.
Well the 4770K has a quite large iGPU too. So since you still make such a statement, how many percent of the 4770K die area is occupied by iGPU
But with native 256bit pipelines in Carizo it will just blast SR core in AVX/FMA stuff so workloads that were running better on intel before will see major shrinkage of the gap with Excavator
I actually wonder if the 2.41B number is true. AMD also first claimed BD was 2B, then revised to 1.2B. Looking on the Hawaii numbers for GCN1.1, the GPU in Kaveri should be around 1.1B transistors roughly. I dont see Streamroller using 1.3B, the same as a BD/PD chip. Or what the entire Richland chip uses.
Yes , we remember that its GPU was 42% of the die , about
the same as Kaveri s 47%....
31%.
what about the extra decoder stuff and hq features and trueaudio?
[note; speaking mile high level here]
Ok, so a 47-31=16% difference in percent of die area occupied by iGPU when comparing A10-7850K to 4770K. Not that much. And it certainly cannot explain the density difference alone.
Also, note that Intel's process technology is supposed to be 22 nm vs GloFo/AMD's which is 28 nm. So you'd expect the 22 nm process to be denser than the 28 nm process, even taking into account the 16% difference in iGPU die area percentage.
The A10-7850K has 9.80M transistors/mm^2 vs 4770K at 7.91M transistors/mm^2. I would have expected about the opposite density advantage in Intel's favor instead. Interesting to see that is not the case!
Remember the APU on 32nm GloFo? 1.3B/246mm2. Or 5.2M/mm2.
Or BD on 32nm GloFo. 1.2B/315mm2. Or 3.81M/mm2. Same process as the APU above.
Ok, so a 47-31=16% difference in percent of die area occupied by iGPU when comparing A10-7850K to 4770K. Not that much. And it certainly cannot explain the density difference alone.
Also, note that Intel's process technology is supposed to be 22 nm vs GloFo/AMD's which is 28 nm. So you'd expect the 22 nm process to be denser than the 28 nm process, even taking into account the 16% difference in iGPU die area percentage.
The A10-7850K has 9.8M/mm^2 vs 4770K at 7.91M/mm^2. I would have expected about the opposite density advantage in Intel's favor instead. Interesting to see that is not the case!
Not apples and oranges enough to explain the density advantage that GloFo's 28 nm has over Intel's 22 nm. Only 16% difference in die area occupied by iGPU cannot explain that alone.Still apple and oranges.
If you have some more accurate info than what can be found in AMD's public slides, please share it.Plus the raised question if Kaveri actually got 2.41B transistors.
You compare apples and oranges. GPU part is more dense by nature. Much more. As example before, Pitcairn 212mm2 2.8B. Or 13.2M/mm2 by your math.
Remember the APU on 32nm GloFo? 1.3B/246mm2. Or 5.2M/mm2.
Or BD on 32nm GloFo. 1.2B/315mm2. Or 3.81M/mm2. Same process as the APU above.
Intels 32nm with SB. 1.16B/216mm2. Or 5.3M/mm2. Surprisingly better than the APUs. But again, cache is also dense.
He is comparing apples and oranges. TSMC and GloFo's process nodes are not comparable in that regard.Not apples and oranges enough to explain the density advantage that GloFo's 28 nm has over Intel's 22 nm. Only 16% difference in die area occupied by iGPU cannot explain that alone.
If you have some more accurate info than what can be found in AMD's public slides, please share it.
He is comparing apples and oranges. TSMC and GloFo's process nodes are not comparable in that regard.
The chart shows desktop shipments. Not APUs specificly. So you need to look at the entire desktop product mix. I was simply being generous only using the FM2 socket to compare.
Not necessarily the same as AMD might have used high density libraries on different parts of different APU designs.And GloFo to GLoFo?
Well the 4770K has a quite large iGPU too. So since you still make such a statement, how many percent of the 4770K die area is occupied by iGPU? And similarly for the A10-7850K die?
Not necessarily the same as AMD might have used high density libraries on different parts of different APU designs.
So the chart showing just desktop A10 APU's is now not showing APU's specifically.
They don't mean anything. I don't mean to be rude, but have you been living under a rock?That's even higher density than Intel's 22 nm process! :awe:
Intel 4770K is 1.4B transistors on 177mm^2. So it's:
Intel 22 nm: 1.4B/177mm^2=7.91M/mm^2
GloFo/AMD 28 nm: 2.4B/245mm^2=9.80M/mm^2
And yet it's 22 nm vs 28 nm. Do those nm numbers actually mean anything anymore?
I wonder why AMD just doesn't use that 45W model as a base for mobile chip? It would sell for sure and command higher price than most of their mobile lineup. Pair it with some 7750 ddr3 version for HCF and you get a nice laptop for games.
I have never in my life paid more then 250 dollars for a processor for any of my PC's including my gaming PC's.
We are once again in a situation where Intel having zero competition has allowed them to price their parts exceptionally high.
I think AMD is kinda out of the game when it comes to mobile processors if you discount mobile gaming laptops, or anything performance oriented for graphics. Haswell's TDP ranges anywhere from 11.5w to 57w across the entire mobile range from the 2961Y Celeron notebook processor to the 4930MX beast with the HD4600 graphics. In a time where 9 hour+ battery lifes are a deciding factor in netbook or small form factor laptop purchases, AMD just cant compete still. The deciding factor behind my purchase of my dell inspiron 11 was exclusively the fact that it used the haswell 15w 2955U, which made the battery life absolutely amazing for a 3 cell lithium ion.
Like i said though, alot of this is just speculation until we get some solid reviews from good sites about what its capable of. I for one am very excited to see what the results are and my hope is that kaveri puts AMD back within some range of competition with intel again. We are once again in a situation where Intel having zero competition has allowed them to price their parts exceptionally high. I have never in my life paid more then 250 dollars for a processor for any of my PC's including my gaming PC's.
Today 250$ gives you about the fastest CPU money can buy. 10 years ago when X2 ruled, 250$ wouldnt even buy you the cheapest X2. Looking back further, 250$ would give you even less. And thats even without accounting for inflation.
Funny since CPUs have never been cheaper since the "no competition" began in 2006. And if you think on why, you would know competition got nothing to do with it anymore. Its a simple volume/margin ratio. And its obvious that Intel think we are at the sweet spot and been so for years.