By: juanrga (nomail.delete@this.juanrga.com), April 7, 2021 11:50 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on April 7, 2021 10:01 am wrote:
> 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?
>
The Octeon-based Thunder µarch was a completely different design. The Vulcan-based TX2/TX3 µarches were very competitive processors. The Cavium TX2 processors matched and/or exceeded AMD Naples, but at one-half the cost.
> 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?
>
The Octeon-based Thunder µarch was a completely different design. The Vulcan-based TX2/TX3 µarches were very competitive processors. The Cavium TX2 processors matched and/or exceeded AMD Naples, but at one-half the cost.