By: Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com), April 7, 2021 10:01 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
juanrga (nomail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on April 7, 2021 7:36 am wrote:
>Just to give you an idea, in the previous generation, if you look at ThunderX2, compared to AMD or Skylake,
> for the same process node technology [we get] roughly 20% to 25% smaller die area. That translates into lower
> power. When we move to 7nm with ThunderX3, our core compared to AMD Rome’s 7nm is roughly 30% smaller.
Thunder were a crap series of processors, how about comparing to a closer design such as Apple Firestorm? Or the previous, 7nm design?
>Just to give you an idea, in the previous generation, if you look at ThunderX2, compared to AMD or Skylake,
> for the same process node technology [we get] roughly 20% to 25% smaller die area. That translates into lower
> power. When we move to 7nm with ThunderX3, our core compared to AMD Rome’s 7nm is roughly 30% smaller.
Thunder were a crap series of processors, how about comparing to a closer design such as Apple Firestorm? Or the previous, 7nm design?
