By: savantu (savantu.delete@this.email.ro), November 19, 2010 5:37 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 11/19/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 11/17/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>I doubt any of its contemporaries (Willamette, Power4,
>>EV6, US-III) would have held up as well being kept on
>>life support all the way to a 65 nm quad core.
>
>To be entirely fair I'd say that Willamette would have probably done better than Prescott did on 90/65nm.
Prescott solved a lot of the fragility of the earlier designs ( Willy, Northwood ). Especially for servers, the difference was more pronounced.
---------------------------
>someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 11/17/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>I doubt any of its contemporaries (Willamette, Power4,
>>EV6, US-III) would have held up as well being kept on
>>life support all the way to a 65 nm quad core.
>
>To be entirely fair I'd say that Willamette would have probably done better than Prescott did on 90/65nm.
Prescott solved a lot of the fragility of the earlier designs ( Willy, Northwood ). Especially for servers, the difference was more pronounced.
