By: Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com), February 2, 2013 9:58 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 2, 2013 9:42 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 2, 2013 5:04 am wrote:
> > On the sameish process (0.35) and date, 195MHz R10K was ~10% faster in
> > specint95 than the 200MHz PentiumPro, and ~50% faster in specfp95.
>
> The R10K die was 298 mm^2, P6 was 196 mm^2. R10K is 50% bigger, 10% faster for integer, and 50% faster for FP.
Just to be 100% clear: 'anon' specified a comparison between the contemporaneous R10K and P6 variants on 0.35 um processes, so that's the P6 area number that I gave (P6 on 0.35 um was 504 mils square). The very first 0.5 um P6s were larger (307 mm^2) but those came out a fair bit before R10K so it's not a valid comparison.
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 2, 2013 5:04 am wrote:
> > On the sameish process (0.35) and date, 195MHz R10K was ~10% faster in
> > specint95 than the 200MHz PentiumPro, and ~50% faster in specfp95.
>
> The R10K die was 298 mm^2, P6 was 196 mm^2. R10K is 50% bigger, 10% faster for integer, and 50% faster for FP.
Just to be 100% clear: 'anon' specified a comparison between the contemporaneous R10K and P6 variants on 0.35 um processes, so that's the P6 area number that I gave (P6 on 0.35 um was 504 mils square). The very first 0.5 um P6s were larger (307 mm^2) but those came out a fair bit before R10K so it's not a valid comparison.
