To: pgerassi who wrote (215096 ) 10/26/2006 4:43:17 PM From: eracer Read Replies (1) | Respond to Re: That isn't a problem for AMD as DCA makes multiple cores just as easy a way to higher performance. Your clock rate BS is just plain irrelevant. ATI and nVidia had to work with bulk foundry processes that were optimized for yield, not speed or power. They had to work with higher bandwidth memory because they needed to eek out that last few % of performance. dozen percent, and even more when cranking up the resolution, AA and AF.You are the one in error using larger bulk, high yield process GPUs to estimate what similar performance GPU cores using a smaller speed and power optimal CPU ssSOI process would need in die area. AMD and Intel had to push clock rate because of the serial nature of most programs. They had to lower memory latency because of the significant hit to performance of their fast cores. They used OOO and branch prediction to help performance due to the wide gulf between memory speed and CPU speeds. If you continue with the clock rate BS, you should remember what happened to Prescott. Higher clocks lead to leakage and higher heat output. If you don't believe me, take it from the overclocking crowd. They know to speed up the CPUs, you need to use better cooling. That is the hallmark of a thermally limited CPU core. A speed path limited core doesn't speed up much when cooled. That means that power consumption is now a problem for clock rate increases. That is also why twice the cores at 80% of the clock rate at the same power perform better in a multi processing environment.
