Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaminga_d" data-source="post: 244782" data-attributes="member: 8237">Kuma looks like the dual-core K8L core processor to get, if you're buying AMD. Far more L3 cache per core <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" />Seems that AMD can do ~30W/core up to 2.6GHz on their current 65nm node (+5W for memory controller + HT), hence 125W quad-core and 65W dual-core.Now if a K8L core is on average 20% faster than a K8 core, that makes a 2.6GHz core equivalent to a 3.1GHz K8. I don't see 65W dual-core 3.1GHz K8s on the market yet...Of course, it will probably be 10% faster for integer tasks, and 30% faster for floating point - pessimistically. It could be 20%/50% I guess, we'll wait for the reviews for that!So:Q2: Server K8L Barcelona Quad CoreQ3: Desktop K8L Agena, KumaQ4: SFF Kuma, Desktop RanaAnd Intel's Q4? Penryn has two-threads per core ... hmmm. AMD needs to up the clocks IMO, even with the improved IPC.</blockquote>

Top Bottom