Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge Architecture Exposed
by Someone on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:39AM
(#3009875)
", or at least split the product line in 2: one that continues to double up the performance every year, while maintaining the same TDP, like they do now, and one where they maintain the performance, but cut the power consumption in half every year."
That is more of a tactic than a strategy. After 3-odd years, there would be a 10 times performance difference between the 'fast' and the 'cool' lines. Chances are there is room between them.
Also, I think is more economical to produce old designs at new technologies for the 'cool' line than to design new 'cool' chips from scratch. That would likely get you 90% of the goal for 10% of the costs.
That 90% probably is sufficient, too, as CPU power usage typically is only a fraction of system power usage. I think that applies even to most embedded stuff for which an ARM is appropriate (ignoring on-chip audio and video decoding hardware)
That is more of a tactic than a strategy. After 3-odd years, there would be a 10 times performance difference between the 'fast' and the 'cool' lines. Chances are there is room between them.
Also, I think is more economical to produce old designs at new technologies for the 'cool' line than to design new 'cool' chips from scratch. That would likely get you 90% of the goal for 10% of the costs.
That 90% probably is sufficient, too, as CPU power usage typically is only a fraction of system power usage. I think that applies even to most embedded stuff for which an ARM is appropriate (ignoring on-chip audio and video decoding hardware)