AMD and Intel General Discussion (not for getting help)

Page 41 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was wondering how well the i3 / i5 would have been if the IMC had been 32nm and on the same die instead of next to it on a 45nm shared GPU die.

I just don't understand the reasoning for it ...

Their next tock will surely put it back ... and so making that little champ a lower power device.

Plus the latency issues are then addressed.

Thoughts as to why ... something to do with the halted move to lrb?
 
These things get planned out 3-4 years in advance. The Larrabee decision was made in the last couple of quarters.

I wasn't involved in the decision, just the results, so I can only speculate, but I suspect it was done to allow flexibility in stepping the "chipset" die and "CPU" die separately. The design groups for both have been separated in the past, and I think for this first foray into the merger it was considered most expedient to allow for the most flexibility.
 
Essentially, "stone". Monolithic = one stone, aka one die.

Or think of it this way: a monolithic CPU is an incredibly advanced piece of technology that is worshipped by lesser men and studied jealously by highly intelligent scientists. And, judging from the movie 2001 and this thread, causes fights like you wouldn't believe.
 


Jeez ... I got lost in a time warp there for a sec ... thanks for bringing me forward Arch.

Yes .. Sandy Bridge.

My apols.

Lucky we have some Intel employees (not fanboys) here to set us straight.

 
also, this is AMD:

junk%20car2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.