amdfangirl :
It's like the ACP debate.
Eh, not really. The ACP debate was due Intel rating the Core-based Xeons' TDPs using "typical power" figures rather than using the previous definition of fairly close to maximum power as the Opterons and Netburst-based Xeons used. AMD had also significantly over-rated many of their Opterons' TDPs to make sure that there was plenty of cooling no matter what. Some sleazy vendors had skimped on cooling on some K7 chips and also didn't often implement catastrophic overheat protection, and AMD's chips had acquired a reputation of "burning up" as a result. AMD used ACP to try to make a more apples-to-apples comparison between the Third Generation Opterons and the Core- and Nehalem-based Xeons as Intel was pushing the TDP issue pretty hard. Currently you don't hear anything about ACP as AMD has Core Performance Boost on all Bulldozer-based parts and sets the power limit as equal to the TDP, so ACP can equal TDP if you really whack at the chip. So they dropped ACP.
The Intel "SDP" essentially is that the chip can thermally throttle itself down to an 8 watt power long-term power consumption if you grossly undercool it. The thermal *design* power of the chip is 17 watts or so since that's the amount of power it will draw if you expect it to run at full rated speed. AMD's chips can throttle too but as far as I can tell AMD simply releases grossly underclocked chips that have a design power of whatever watts instead of relying on throttling to keep temps in check in an undercooled system.
de5_Roy :
i am all for gt3 on desktop
. even if it drives up tdp from 84w. amd's top dt apus are 100w so that's not a factor. i was disappointed to see all dt cpus 'rumored' get puny gt2. may be intel got too lazy and decided not to include 40 shaders on the dt silicon.
shaderrage!
Who knows, it probably has to deal with product line segmentation if history is any guide. You would expect desktop chips to be available with the larger IGP setup as desktops aren't as power- and cooling-constrained and tend to have larger displays. Businesses and HTPC users would do well with a stouter IGP rather than needing to buy a discrete GPU to get adequate desktop performance. I suppose only Intel really knows.
Chad Boga :
Don't think the average punter will get their hands on a CPU made on a 450mm wafer till 2016, it will probably be on the 10nm process.
I would expect the punters to be the FIRST ones to get these chips. Intel's strategy is to introduce new processes on small, midrange and low-end chips. For example, the first chips on 32 nm were the dual-core Clarkdales and the first 22 nm chips were only quad-core at best. The really big chips like Xeon EXes and Itaniums are always the last ones to move to a new process. Shoot, 8-way Xeon EXes are still 32 nm Westmere based, not even Sandy Bridge let alone Ivy Brdge.