45nm Core 2 Quad?? DX10

[b1gapl]

"If a rendering or instruction set path is so important, why do people buy Core 2 processors? Those processors attempt to use an x86-64 instruction set known as EM64T yet they have limited support with actual x86-64 based applications. Why are people not jumping up and down suggesting to wait until EM64T has better support? I wonder if anyone else even knows that"

you mean that current 64 bit processors aren't really 64 bit? only the server processors are the real 64 bit processors?

I think he meant, that they are 64-bit processors, but the lack of 64-bit applications, is not making them effective as 64-bit processors.

 

[OnlyCurious]

I don't understand why some people care so much about the process size when they don't even understand it.
THE PROCESS SIZE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF A CHIP.

I know what NM stands for and what process size is all about... LOL. I guess I was being a little vague. I was talking in regards to the laptops... since 45nm processors will consume less power which would mean longer battery life (for a laptop), then wouldn't the 65nm processors go down in price because it consumes more power? I would think so. Having a desktop that consumes less power would be great too. haha.

But then in this case, since everyone assumes that there will only be desktop processors coming out on the 22nd... I guess this question is futile.

 

[zmatt]

Actually the process size has A LOT to do with its performance. because 2 chips with basically the same guts wit hone being 65nm and another being 45nm, the 45 one runs just as fast but runs cooler and uses less power. So you can clock it higher and get better performance for the same power usage and heat dissipation. You see this with die shrinks of processors all the time. Both AMD and Intel do it, and the resulting chips OC much better. But the bigger benefit is that for the same 200mm wafer i can get more chips with more transistors in them using the same amount of silicon. A dual core 65nm Athlon X2 6000+ for example has more transistors but physically takes up the same surface area of the older 90nm Athlon 64 single cores. Each of the X2's cores are half the surface area of the older one but each has roughly the same transistor count.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

Actually the process size has A LOT to do with its performance. because 2 chips with basically the same guts wit hone being 65nm and another being 45nm, the 45 one runs just as fast but runs cooler and uses less power. So you can clock it higher and get better performance for the same power usage and heat dissipation. You see this with die shrinks of processors all the time. Both AMD and Intel do it, and the resulting chips OC much better. But the bigger benefit is that for the same 200mm wafer i can get more chips with more transistors in them using the same amount of silicon. A dual core 65nm Athlon X2 6000+ for example has more transistors but physically takes up the same surface area of the older 90nm Athlon 64 single cores. Each of the X2's cores are half the surface area of the older one but each has roughly the same transistor count.

Ding Ding Ding!!!

 

[NosBoost300]

eh, after reading this, i think i may just wait out on getting a gtx.. just maybe... cuz i'd obviously end up scrapping that for a 9 series or something of the sort... gts again perhaps

 

[veg1992]

ya the brisbane x2 3600+ and the Windsor... are good examples with the 65nm and 90nm respectfully....

 

[Sydzy]

200mm wafer eh.... mmmmm, i love wafers, and cream

 

[zmatt]

silicon wafers don't taste too good.

 

[b1gapl]

Maybe with aluminum and copper sprinkles.

 

[mc6pack]

LOL.. do u think its worth goin DX10 atm, there seems to be a big drop in perfomance lvls from dx9 ?

DX11... is DX10 optimal yet ?