David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 6:54 pm wrote:
> Alexko (lexoka.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 15, 2014 5:43 pm wrote:
> > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 3:01 pm wrote:
> > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 15, 2014 11:39 am wrote:
> > > > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I also am skeptical that anyone can match Intel in performance while trailing behind by a node. To do that,
> > > > > it is necessary to offer a very different product with a
> > > > > different system architecture. E.g., target workloads
> > > > > where cache does not help and simply slap down more memory controllers and cores (hint: that's a GPU!).
> > >
> > > > The ISA advantage will be greatly reduced in the top-end
> > > > side of the performance spectrum, but will not vanish.
> > > > Keller mentioned during Core Day conference that his K12
> > > > core will have a "bigger engine" than its x86 sister
> > > > thanks to the advantages of ARMv8 over x86-64, which allows to spend more transistors on compute.
> > >
> > > I happen to know the differences between those two designs. I'm not really sure it's
> > > going to translate into a significant performance delta. My guess is maybe 10%.
> >
> > Interesting! Are you planning on writing an article on K12 and/or its x86 variant?
>
> Right now there aren't really sufficient details. I look forward
> to when AMD will disclose a bit more about the architectures.
>
> David

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that whatever you know would be worth reading, since the public knows pretty much nothing. All AMD has said publicly is that it will clock closer to 4GHz than 2GHz.