From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B06113800E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:35:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B370E0693; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22D3E045E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so1301166wib.10 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:34:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=ID3e/AsiB1eiHy50n913QpNhEi1J68A0vGFEqSxWV/o=; b=MUXZ7dU4cjYbtYo24clCT1W4qBYQ35+zaEOrXTyTqRpsWM2gdN9JIvwxxvb26tV3yp cIWxLU5pkX/1W2dNtDB3Y/ePoV45VsTFgRwDMEOLk8kXnyAMQZ4+Sy12ORcVtI4UWD3W 8w+M+8Z2fJNC3ydEYnYBCoLtBEICccRoR0aNzzSlENOAhYkJfNirEZQHyzF7ivR4PqcB FbqR92mKLgTg9qjocgG0B+MsMwrm8mpVYEhr2pEJOjG89gJmJTngeE0gLIOYFySJVyCN o+xzPhHurbyBYSLanM/FBTL50Zl7MdFfKJAL2UjJkmASFiaSOYtGb1F7eZuRn7YaL6OQ xvlg== Received: by 10.180.89.235 with SMTP id br11mr2264623wib.3.1343298851026; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localnet (p4FC611CF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.198.17.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id df4sm7561921wib.4.2012.07.26.03.34.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:34:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: Philip Webb Cc: Gentoo User Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] new machine : CPU : 22 nm vs 32 nm Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:34:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1525304.7pUK7Ol4gj@localhost> User-Agent: KMail/4.9 rc2 (Linux/3.0.36; KDE/4.8.97; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20120725202442.GG2965@ca.inter.net> References: <20120725200529.GF2965@ca.inter.net> <14299030.YE6E2ePAfG@localhost> <20120725202442.GG2965@ca.inter.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: ea45f8e6-db48-4978-a8b7-d98d81b75a79 X-Archives-Hash: 5739713df8ee5e8ab26efab943a1579f Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:24:42 schrieb Philip Webb: > 120725 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012, 16:05:29 schrieb Philip Webb: > >> I've listed what's available at the local store, > >> which I trust to stock reliable items, tho' I wouldn't ask their advice. > >> All the AMD's are 32 nm , while the Intel recommended by one commenter > >> -- Core i5-3570 4-Core Socket LGA1155, 3.4 Ghz, 6MB L3 Cache, 22 nm -- > >> is 22 nm : it costs CAD 230 & they have 3 in stock, > >> which suggests demand, but not the most popular ( 9 in stock). > >> Isn't 22 nm going to be faster than 32 nm ? > > > > no > > In the absence of further explication, I'm likely to go with 22 nm . because structure size has no influence on the performance - from a user point of view. In theory: smaller structers - less power needed - faster switching - so higher clocks are possible., In practice: smaller structures - more leak current - not as much faster clocks as hoped. For a user there is no difference between a 3ghz 32nm or a 3ghz 22nm cpu. The later one MIGHT use less power. But nothing is guaranteed. > > >> In the same price range, AMD offers Bulldozer X8 FX-8150 (125W) > >> > >> 8-Core Socket AM3+, 3.6 GHz, 8Mb Cache, 32 nm ( CAD 220 , 2 in > >> stock). > >> > >> How do you compare cores vs nm ? > > > > who cares? > > These answers are not very helpful : does anyone have anything more so ? because you don't. cores and nm are in no way related. > > >> How far is cache size important ( 6 vs 8 MB )? > > > > depends on the architecture. > > It occurs to me that a larger cache goes with more cores, > so the last question is not so important. no, really, this is the only question that makes sense. And it depends on the cache structure. A 6mb L3 'victim' cache that only caches stuff that is not in L2 and L1 might be better than a 8mb L3 cache that also holds the same stuff as L2 and L1. -- #163933