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
