backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Apr 21 at 9:52 AM

28nm technology promises 40% more performance than 45nm tech

The IBM Technology Alliance -- including IBM, Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd., GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Infineon Technologies, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., and STMicroelectronics -- have announced that they have jointly defined and are developing a 28nm, high-K metal gate (HKMG), low power CMOS process technology.

IBM reports that the 28nm technology can provide power-performance and time-to-market advantages for makers of a variety of power-sensitive and consumer electronics devices like MIDs and smartphones. The new technology creates improved leakage characteristics that will optimize battery life for next-gen mobile devices.

The alliance has outlined a migration path from the current 32nm process that is being used to the new 28nm technology that requires no costly and time-consuming redesign of the components according to IBM.

IBM's Gary Patton said in a statement, "Through this collaboration, IBM and its alliance partners are helping to accelerate development of next-generation technology to achieve high-performance, energy-efficient chips at the 28nm process level, maintaining our focus on technology leadership for our clients and partners."

IBM says that early work with some clients has shown that the 28nm technology can provide a 40% performance improvement while saving up to 20% in power compared to 45nm technology devices. The HKMG implementation also makes for one of the industry's smallest SRAM cells reports IBM at only 0.120 square microns.

ST-Ericsson's Jorgen Lantto said, "This statement of commitment to 28nm low-power technology by the IBM Joint Development Alliance is an important progression from 32nm high-k metal gate technology. Leaders in the mobile industry can utilize 28nm low-power technology to meet the increasingly aggressive demands for performance and improved battery life."

IBM recently walked away from purchase talks with Sun after Sun's board balked at IBM offer.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By Negronpope on 4/18/2009 12:37:40 PM , Rating: 3
"The Coppermine actually outperformed the much larger, and power hungry Athlon" - that is simply false.
"The Coppermine actually outperformed the much larger, and power hungry Athlon in many benchmarks," - really? which ones? because every benchmark I ran favored the Athlon (and I built systems with both processors for my customers).
I will agree that the Coppermine was superior to early P4s (and pointing that out to my customers and predicting the P4's eventual failure gained me a lot of credit with said customers), but, as you pointed out, their memory bandwidth was lacking (no where near the K7, let alone the K8).
Further, your opinion of the K8 is absurd. The K8 introduced a lot of cutting edge features (like the onboard memory controller). The K8 (an evolution of the K7 design that peformed better clock for clock) not only is light years ahead of the Coppermine, but at lower clock speeds it easily dusted the P4.
You obviously know something about the features of both companies past products, but your bias clearly shows.
Personally, I've sold systems with both company's processors (since the '80's)and I'll buy whatever WORKS.
Your unsupported statements sound logical, but still, they're false.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By Negronpope on 4/18/2009 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, now that I think about it, it was the Tualatin core PIII that beat early P4s.
We all should have been forewarned by a design that brought higher clock speeds and lower performance.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By luceri on 4/20/2009 12:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
same thing happened with Pentium II when going to Pentium III, an equivalently clocked pII could outperform the pIII counterpart.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By TA152H on 4/20/2009 5:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you're wrong. The Pentium II and Pentium III ran exactly the same unless you were running SSE applications, of which there were essentially none until later.

There was no performance difference at all between them otherwise.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By TA152H on 4/20/2009 5:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
You really didn't know the Coppermine beat the Athlon in a lot of benchmarks? Outside of x87, it didn't have too much trouble with it. There are other links there too, for the original battle at 1 GHz, but this one shows it with more chipsets, although I really don't like to see the BX used, since it wasn't supported at 133 MHz officially. But the 840 was a nice chipset, and is valid.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/giga,173-2.htm...

This will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Coppermine does outperform at that time, in almost all non-x87 benchmarks. It's remarkable for a much older, smaller, and much more power-efficient design.

The IMC was a cutting edge feature? Do you really have any knowledge of microprocessors? There was nothing cutting edge about it, it was a design mistake by AMD that bit them in the ass when the Conroe came out and showed how important a bigger L2 cache was. Intel waited until 45nm before they felt it was worth it, since at they could include a lot of cache AND a IMC. But, in reality, it had been done WAY before the K8, even in x86 processors. Do you remember the Nx586? Look it up.

Comparing the K8 to the Coppermine is absurd, they were generations apart. But, even so, the Coppermine, and even the 1995 Pentium Pro had been instruction scheduling. The Coppermine also had a vastly superior L2 cache. The Pentium M line, which was based on the P6, was far superior in many characteristics to the K8, and this despite the fact it was made with a focus on power use. When it went mainstream, in the Conroe, well, in a phrase "game over". Much faster, and more power efficient.

The Pentium 4, even the lowly Prescott, was still competitive with the K8 when it was retired. As I mentioned, in a general sense, it was slower, but it beat the K8 in more than a few benchmarks too. As I mentioned, it's a horrible processor, and everyone knows this.

Having lower clock speed and doing this is irrelevant, that was a design choice Intel made; to lower IPC but increase clock speed. The performance vis-a-vis the AMD processors wasn't so bad, but the power use and size of the thing were dreadful, even considering Intel's vastly superior manufacturing ability.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By MrPoletski on 4/20/2009 11:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Athlon was brilliant? Based on what?


Based on the DEC Alpha, which was a far superior architecture to anything Intel or AMD have ever put out.

quote:
The Athlon had a difficult time competing the the P6, a processor that was introduced in 1995,


No it didn't, its price/performance trounced the Intel lineup. The first K7's were not performance leaders though... but then no brand new processor every is on release day. Even the i920 isn't as fast as the top of the line penryns, does that mean it is an inferioir processor?

quote:
about four years earlier. The Coppermine actually outperformed the much larger, and power hungry Athlon in many benchmarks,


In some benches, the up-rev of the P3 beat the athlons out at the time. I.e. it became competative from a performance standpoint... but not a price performance standpoint. The answer to this from AMD was the nnot much later athlon XP / K8. The K8 added the on-die cache like the coppermine.

quote:
despite having a seriously crippled memory bus. A design so much larger, and so much later should have had no problems with it.


How the hell can you say the coppermine is 'so much later' than the K7? the damn thing came out over a year later. Coppermine march 2000, K7 june 1999.

If you wanan be really stupid like that you could say it came out in 1978 because that's when the first x86 processor was released.

quote:
The Pentium 4 also had problems with the Pentium III, so much that they had to artificially limit the Tualatin, and make it very expensive as well.


The P4 had problems with the P3? what? in that it was totally outclassed? lol. The tualatin was never 'artificially limited' They had to recall the 1.13Ghz P3's because they didn't work properly, remember? the Tualatin was a POWER SAVING design used for servers and was further migrated later into the pentium M. Thats M for MOBILE. Not something you'd use a P4.

quote:
The K8, despite being released almost a decade later, does not have the ability to schedule instructions as effectively, with respect to reads following writes, as the Pentium Pro did, despite that processor having been released in 1995.


So what? it was far and away faster than the pentium pro, so WHO CARES? By the way, the athlon was the first Pc processor able to execute 3 instructions per clock. how many could the P4 execute per clock?

quote:
The Pentium Pro was always the best design, and as it got updated for the mobile market, and eventually became the Conroe, Penryn


They are so far removed from that original P6 core that it's misleading to say they are the same design.

quote:
and Nehalem, it's shown rather clearly its superior lineage.


no, NOT nehalem. Nehalem is a brand new architecture. The newest processor based of the P6 design is the Larrabee. They took an original P6 core and threw a 512bit wide vector unit on it and went 'wow' so took it further and are now making it into a GPGPU. Should be out this year.

Atom is also based on the P6 - ish. It's an in-order processor tho which is unusual..

quote:
The Athlon was never particularly good. Compared to the Pentium III, even when it could outperform it due to higher clock speeds, it ran much hotter, was much larger, and pulled a lot more electricity.


That is just not true. http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=1264

here you see the coppermine 800 often beating but never by that much the K7 800.

quote:
And again, the Pentium III was crippled by it's memory bus, not it's internal architecture.


The P3 was not crippled at all, but the i820 was a POS chipset. RDRAM would have been a wise move if they were using integrated memory controllers then, but they weren't.

quote:
The K8 was an utter failure, and it was only the Prescott that hid that well.


How on earth can you call the K8 an 'utter failure'?

It was the first desktop processor to integrate it's memory controller. A move that took Intel until the i7 to replicate. By your above used logic that makes the i7 inferior to the K8.

quote:
It was simply too close to the K7,


It was also the first 64 bit PC processor.

So in summation it had different from the K7:

64bit x86 instruction set;
on die memory controller;
12 stage vs 10 stage pipeline;
TLB buffer size was increased;
New power saving features, cool n quiet like speedstep;
No execute bit;
Multi core support;
and more!

yes it was an evolution of the K7, but that doesn't mean it is 'too similar'. You can see the perfromance of the thing here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

K8 was AMD most successful core ever. To call it an utter failure is utter ignorance.

quote:
and they must have been crazy to think Intel would always suck, especially when their mobile processors were always better than the K7 or K8.


Umm, they didn't think that. Nobody thinks that.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By TA152H on 4/20/2009 12:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
MrPoletski,

You're really lucky I'll even dignify your uninformed remarks with a response, but I will.

The Alpha was not an architecture, it was an instruction set, and what made it fast, when it was, was that DEC's implementations were extremely expensive. There was nothing special about the instruction set, and many times during the lifetime of it, POWER was faster. Initially, it was a very high clock speed processor, whereas the POWER was IPC, but even that changed over time. Anyway, I was asking based on what was he saying the K7 was brilliant. In reality, it had nothing brilliant and was a prosaic design.

Your remarks about processors coming out and not have good performance initially is absurd and ignorant. It didn't even make sense with respect to the Athlon, which initially did have a performance edge of the Pentium III. The Conroe raped the Pentium 4 and K8, and the i7 beats the Penryn, but you stupidly compared the low end with the high end. The fact remains, the high end i7 easily beats the high end Penryn. And it's very closely based on it.

The Coppermine was based on the Pentium Pro, which was released in 1995. The Pentium II made some minor internal changes, mostly to run 16-bit software, since segmentation is rarely used in 32-bit software (well, technically, it is, but they use a 32-bit segment so it's irrelevant). The Pentium III was a Pentium II with SSE, nothing more. The Coppermine was a Pentium III with a different L2 cache arrangement, being on die instead of going through the "back-side bus".

The 1.13 Pentium IIIs they pulled from the market were Coppermines, not Tualatins. They later found out it had problems with the L2 cache at that clock speed. The Tualatins could overclock easily to 1.6 GHz, but Intel priced them very high and keep the memory bus speed limited to 133 MHz.

Nehalem is not a brand new architecture, it's very similar to the Penryn internally. The changes are mainly with the cache and memory architecture, and sometimes not even for the better (for example, the L1 cache is slower). You really need to do some reading before say things like this, it's very uninformed, especially since Intel doesn't even know it's a new architecture. Nor does AMD know the Phenom II is brand new. They thought the Bulldozer was going to be the new one. Maybe you should tell them so they don't do something really stupid. They need to know!

The K8 was not even close to the first processor to move the memory controller to the processor. Intel didn't do it not because it was so difficult, but because it made no sense to. The Pentium 4 was too big, and the Conroe was better served with larger cache memory. With 45nm, it finally made sense. If you think the K8 was the first, look at the NexGen 586 processor, which came out in the mid-90s. There was nothing new about it. That doesn't make it a mistake, but it doesn't make it an innovation either.

The Pentium III was limited by it's bandwidth tremendously, and that made RDRAM ill suited for it. The 840 chipset for the Pentium III was better though, having lower latency. But the Pentium III was just stuck with a single pumped bus, unlike the Athlon which was doubled, and the Pentium 4 which was quad-pumped. Both had much higher bandwidth and that crippled the Pentium IIIs performance. RDRAM was very effective with the Pentium 4, by the way, because the Pentium 4 could take advantage of its bandwidth. The Pentium III could not, and had the same problem with DDR, although DDR did not have the latency issues of RDRAM.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By MrPoletski on 4/21/2009 9:52:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're really lucky I'll even dignify your uninformed remarks with a response, but I will.


um, pot, kettle?

quote:
The Alpha was not an architecture, it was an instruction set,


Again, it is the name of a FAMILY of processors, get it right.

quote:
and what made it fast, when it was, was that DEC's implementations were extremely expensive.


It was fast because it was expensive?

Does that mean macs are faster than PC's?

LMFAO.

quote:
There was nothing special about the instruction set, and many times during the lifetime of it, POWER was faster.


still beat the crap out of any equivelant Intel processor. Being as you keep forgetting how much more expensive the P4 was vs the K8 for the same performance I am assuming price is irrelevant.

quote:
Initially, it was a very high clock speed processor, whereas the POWER was IPC, but even that changed over time. Anyway, I was asking based on what was he saying the K7 was brilliant. In reality, it had nothing brilliant and was a prosaic design.


It was based on the alpha design, a design which Intel later bought to avoid patent infringment lawsuits from DEC.

quote:
Your remarks about processors coming out and not have good performance initially is absurd and ignorant. It didn't even make sense with respect to the Athlon, which initially did have a performance edge of the Pentium III. The Conroe raped the Pentium 4 and K8, and the i7 beats the Penryn, but you stupidly compared the low end with the high end. The fact remains, the high end i7 easily beats the high end Penryn. And it's very closely based on it.


*shakes head*

quote:
The Coppermine was based on the Pentium Pro, which was released in 1995. The Pentium II made some minor internal changes, mostly to run 16-bit software, since segmentation is rarely used in 32-bit software (well, technically, it is, but they use a 32-bit segment so it's irrelevant). The Pentium III was a Pentium II with SSE, nothing more. The Coppermine was a Pentium III with a different L2 cache arrangement, being on die instead of going through the "back-side bus".


Yes... I know this, did I say otherwise?

quote:
The 1.13 Pentium IIIs they pulled from the market were Coppermines, not Tualatins. They later found out it had problems with the L2 cache at that clock speed. The Tualatins could overclock easily to 1.6 GHz, but Intel priced them very high and keep the memory bus speed limited to 133 MHz.


Server chips for the enterprise market usually do have a much higher markup, would you put a xeon in your home desktop?

quote:
Nehalem is not a brand new architecture, it's very similar to the Penryn internally.


Intel disagrees. Even if it might be similar to the penryn internally, that does not make it the same bloody chip with an IMC bolted on the front.

quote:
The changes are mainly with the cache and memory architecture, and sometimes not even for the better (for example, the L1 cache is slower).


Yeah, Intel deliberately slowed the cache speed down for the fun of it..... or perhaps there was a damn good reason for Intel to reduce ONE factor of cache performance in order to increase another factor of cache performance huh?

quote:
You really need to do some reading before say things like this, it's very uninformed, especially since Intel doesn't even know it's a new architecture. Nor does AMD know the Phenom II is brand new. They thought the Bulldozer was going to be the new one. Maybe you should tell them so they don't do something really stupid. They need to know!


Funny that, they are the ones that told ME in their press releases, the white papers and the interviews etc.

quote:
The K8 was not even close to the first processor to move the memory controller to the processor.


No fucking shit, I thought the P9 was the first processor to add two numbers together.

THE FIRST DESKTOP PC PROCESSOR

happy now?

quote:
Intel didn't do it not because it was so difficult, but because it made no sense to.


Were you not just criticising AMD for not implimenting a feature that Intel implimented years before?

quote:
The Pentium 4 was too big, and the Conroe was better served with larger cache memory. With 45nm, it finally made sense.


Oh really? because apparantly (according to you) an i7 is a penryn with a different cache structure and an IMC. so surely the penryn DID benefit from an IMC?

quote:
If you think the K8 was the first, look at the NexGen 586 processor, which came out in the mid-90s. There was nothing new about it. That doesn't make it a mistake, but it doesn't make it an innovation either.


The nexgen 586 did not have an IMC, it didn't even have an integrated x87 unit. The company was bought up by AMD, by the way.

quote:
The Pentium III was limited by it's bandwidth tremendously, and that made RDRAM ill suited for it.


odd you should say that because the problem with RDRAM was not it's bandwith. RDRAM, in fact, had a higher theoretical bandwith than the DDR available at the time.

Perhaps you meant latency.

quote:
The 840 chipset for the Pentium III was better though, having lower latency. But the Pentium III was just stuck with a single pumped bus, unlike the Athlon which was doubled, and the Pentium 4 which was quad-pumped. Both had much higher bandwidth and that crippled the Pentium IIIs performance.


AH, so now you mean FSB bandwidth right? not memory bandwith. Well perhaps if Intel had moved along the same lines as AMD and adopted an IMC THEN and used a QPI style bus...

quote:
RDRAM was very effective with the Pentium 4, by the way, because the Pentium 4 could take advantage of its bandwidth.


The P4 wasted a lot of it's bandwith with overheads. The latency of the RDRAM sucked balls though, something an IMC would go a long way to curing.

quote:
The Pentium III could not, and had the same problem with DDR, although DDR did not have the latency issues of RDRAM.


No it did not. Intel have always been bloody good at their memory/cache heirachy though. Eventually the later conroes had very comparable latencies to system ram to the IMC athlon xps.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By MrPoletski on 4/20/2009 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Phenom is a continuation of a failed design (the K7).


The phenom is a new architecture. To give you an idea a dual core K8 has 94m LOGIC (not cache) transistors vs 247m for the quad core phenom. Per core that's 31% more logic transistors.

quote:
The i7 is a continuation of an excellent design (the Pentium Pro).


Again, the i7 is a brand new design. Please learn about the subject you talk about before rattling off an ignorance fueled post.

quote:
The Pentium 4 is, luckily, a dead design. It was designed as a marketing processor, since people bought things based on clock speed, and weren't so shrewd about understanding performance.


The netburst design was ahead of it's time and din't deal with the unexepcted heat issues. Intel should have known better here. All the work they did trying to get the P4 working faster did wonders for the core 2 though. Core 2 didn't need the lga775 socket for signal integrity, or the plethora of power saving featrues the P4 spawned, nor the excellent heat spreader design and hs/f product base. Core 2 inhereited those though and overclocked like a crack addicted baboon.

quote:
Even so, it was competitive with the K7, generally outperforming it with the Northwood, and was competitive with the K8, but probably slightly slower overall. The damning thing was the size and power use. Kind of the same problem the Athlon had compared to the Pentium III.


you are just wrong, the P4 barely competed with anything. It only sold because it was Intel and it had big numbers next to the word 'speed'.

quote:
Luckily though, Intel got smacked around for the Pentium 4,


because it was far and away more of a failure than the K8.

quote:
and AMD is getting raped with its lousy processors.


well I was disappointed with the phenom, AMd needed it to be faster.

quote:
The market is smarter now, and that's a good thing. I'm still confused how AMD can still make such a bad processor for so long, unless they were foolish enough to believe the K8 was good before the Conroe exposed it as a power hungry, slow, inefficient design. Maybe the Pentium 4 did have a purpose, AMD actually thought they had a good design. Let's hope they know better by now and the Bulldozer gets it right.


AMD need some real magic to avoid falling back to what they were like in the K6 days.

quote:
Still in defense of AMD, even though they clearly have bad designs, competing with Intel is a nightmare these days.


You are talking about THOSE days, not these. the k7/k8 was a fabulous stab at intel and really smacked them.

quote:
The Atom is excellent,


ARM is better.

quote:
but with a bad chipset,


stop gap, they used an old chipset because the next gen atom will have it all on die.

quote:
and the i7 is just crazy good.


The i7 is very fast, I should know I run mine at 3.7 ghz. It is VERY VERY expensive though.

quote:
Maybe they should get some help from IBM in design too, they clearly are out of their league. The POWER chips are looking really good, by contrast.


The advantage intel has always had over intel is vastly superior manufacturing facilities and a lot more resoruces for custom gate deisgn (= higher clockspeeds out of the same logic)

quote:
One thing is for sure, the Bulldozer has to be good. If not, we're so screwed as customers, since Intel will command the market again, and we'll have to pay out the nose for processors. I wish IBM would buy AMD and provide real competition again.


IBM buying AMd would not solve anything, IBM are big enough to just start their own PC processor line.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By TA152H on 4/20/2009 1:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Phenom and i7 are both derivative designs based on their predecessors. Even AMD and Intel do not deny this. AMD does say the Bulldozer is new though, but, I have my doubts.

If you really do not believe the Phenom is the same, look at the resources they devote to x87. Since x87 is deprecated, and not even part of x86-64, no one would possibly want to do this. Also look at how the AGUs are part of the same ports as the ALUs. I don't think AMD would do that if they had to start over again, seeing how the Pentium III and its successors were more successful with a different design. In fact, if you think that the i7 is not a Penryn, look at the internals of the processor. They are essentially the same.

ARM isn't a processor, it's an instruction set that processors are based on. You're comparing apples and oranges. Atom can run a whole lot of software, without a whole lot of power. ARM based processors can't run the software. That's kind of a big deal.

I agree the chipset was a stop gap, but it should never have come to that. They new they were developing the Atom, and they should have been able to come up with something better.

The Pentium 4, even the last Presler, did beat the K8 at some benchmarks. The performance on games was poor, but it was competitive in overall performance. But, it was huge and used so much power, being competitive isn't really such a good thing. And it generally was a little slower. The interesting thing is, if they had moved it to 45nm, it probably would have finally showed some merits, since the power use was a lot lower. No doubt it would never have matched Conroe though.


RE: AMD, Intel, and IBM
By MrPoletski on 4/21/2009 7:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Phenom and i7 are both derivative designs based on their predecessors. Even AMD and Intel do not deny this. AMD does say the Bulldozer is new though, but, I have my doubts.


Umm, of course they are going to keep certain elements of the processor. Just like car manufactures tend to still use wheels on their cars instead of inventing something new. Doesn't mean a mustang is a copy of a toyota. Like I said though, to say the i7 is 'the same' as the penryn is like saying the 486 is 'the same' as the 8086.

quote:
If you really do not believe the Phenom is the same, look at the resources they devote to x87. Since x87 is deprecated, and not even part of x86-64, no one would possibly want to do this.


umm, backwards compatiability? the only thing that's really kept the x86 architecture alive this long?

quote:
Also look at how the AGUs are part of the same ports as the ALUs. I don't think AMD would do that if they had to start over again, seeing how the Pentium III and its successors were more successful with a different design.


A design that is not available to them and a design whos superiority is debatable. I mean why doesn't AMD just copy Intels cache specs instead of using its own blatantly inferior cache structure over the K6 to K8 days? because they couldn't.

quote:
In fact, if you think that the i7 is not a Penryn, look at the internals of the processor. They are essentially the same.


??

quote:
ARM isn't a processor, it's an instruction set that processors are based on. You're comparing apples and oranges.


well if your going to get all literal on me then ARM is a company, not an instruction set. They are a company that produces IP and you can use their processor designs if you like. The processors ARM are responsible for are better than atom when you consider the processors ARM make to compete with atom.

quote:
Atom can run a whole lot of software, without a whole lot of power. ARM based processors can't run the software. That's kind of a big deal.


Arm processors can run software, just not x86 software and they are much more power efficent than atom.

quote:
I agree the chipset was a stop gap, but it should never have come to that. They new they were developing the Atom, and they should have been able to come up with something better.


But it would have taken time, time they did not have if they wanted to grab the MASSIVE netbook market that is spawning right now.

quote:
The Pentium 4, even the last Presler, did beat the K8 at some benchmarks.


My casio watch beats the P4 in 'some benchmarks'.

quote:
The performance on games was poor, but it was competitive in overall performance.


But not PRICE.

quote:
But, it was huge and used so much power, being competitive isn't really such a good thing. And it generally was a little slower. The interesting thing is, if they had moved it to 45nm, it probably would have finally showed some merits, since the power use was a lot lower. No doubt it would never have matched Conroe though.


The P4 needed better branch prediction IMHO, a mis-predict was waaay too expensive.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles
IBM Walks Away from Sun Negotiations
April 6, 2009, 11:20 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki