Citiraj:
Autor Manuel Calavera
Al ne kužim zašto bi takvu dokumentaciju davali nekakvom forumašu/overclockeru, a ne recenzentima, news portalima. Nema mi logike.
Frajer neke likeđe izbacuje po forumima i to tjednima prije prve svjetske recenzije. OK ako je zaposlenik, ali zar im nebi bilo bolje da to objavljuje neki poznati hw site, a i shvatilo bi se kao vjerodostojnije.
|
U CPU/GPU svijetu Stilt je opceprihvacen kao vjerodostojan.
Sigurno je bolji izvor informacija za AMD nego ,recimo, Toms Hardware.
Tehnicki iznimno potkovan,njegovi prosli zaključci su se pokazali kao tocni puno prije nego je izaslo na poznatim HW siteovima.
OC je samo njegov hobby izmedju ostalog.
Njegove analize npr. Carizza su daleko ispred bilo kojeg poznatog HW sitea.
Za Zen je iznio nekoliko jakih argumenata u prilog tome da nece ici preko 3,5-3,8ghz.
Jedan od tekstova koji sposebno zabrinjavajuci za Zen:
Based on Intel´s experience the smaller process no longer results in higher Fmax, even within the exactly same process type and design (i.e a pure shrink). When moving from 32nm HKMG HP (P1268) used on Sandy Bridge to 22nm TG FinFet (P1270) used on Ivy Bridge, around <500MHz in Fmax was lost. When Intel moved from 22nm TG FinFet (P1270) used in Haswell to 14nm TG FinFet (P1272) in Broadwell, they lost almost <500MHz in Fmax once again. To counter the difference, they had to make a more HP targeted 14nm TG FinFet (P1273) node specifically for the desktop processors (Skylake). Otherwise the new desktop processors would have been slower than the previous generation, due the hit from declining Fmax.
So based on this model alone, we cannot expect any INCREASE in Fmax from the smaller process despite being FinFet over standard planar.
And it is known for certain that Intel has spent significantly more resources in their 14nm process development than Samsung. Samsung was initially only interested in providing a superior process for their own ARM based SoCs over the competition. Intel doesn´t compete with Samsung in ARM either
Both the design itself and the used manufacturing process affect the Fmax obviously.
Historically AMD has had issues especially with the caches and these issues have directly reflected to performance and the Fmax. The Fmax you see on all 15h family CPUs is the Fmax of the L2 caches, despite their extremely high latency.
The 32nm SHP SOI HKMG process used on Zambezi, Vishera, Trinity and Richland ended up great despite it´s severe initial issues. The scalability is excellent and the efficiency at higher speeds is even better than on significantly smaller planar processes.
Meanwhile the 28nm *HP planar process used in Kaveri / Godavari and Carrizo doesn´t scale at all. Even below 3GHz frequencies the scalability becomes increasingly worse and above 3GHz frequencies the older 32nm SHP SOI is already ahead of it in power efficiency. The 28nm *HP node is only able to beat it´s predecessor in density and efficiency at extremely low frequencies. At <2.5GHz the 28nm process is still clearly ahead in power efficiency.