VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?7488067 <<<<<<
Eden said the chip has 1. Interestingly, his number was slightly different from other numbers I've seen for transistors, which have said the quad-core version has million transistors on a mm2 die, while the dual-core has million transistors on a mm2 die.
I've personally asked TechArp to correct the specifications on few of the products. Some of them they just have to take a guess as official information is hard to come by. Though specifically regarding this I'm pretty sure they have gotten the same number as the review sites did.
Yes David, this is all kinda weird. Weird in that why would Intel not include the transistor count spec in the official CPU information page on their web site? If it is a little below or above one billion, either is a huge accomplishment IMO. If it was actually less than say an i series four-core CPU, which are million, so what?
Better overall performance with less transistors would be a great accomplishment as well. Or due to the Western culture's paradigm of more and bigger always meaning better, would that be perceived as not better? Is there a marketing concern over that? I could understand that, as the semi-informed would always consider more as better. Another factor could be the inclusion of the on-CPU graphics processor, whose transistors are not part of the regular CPU functioning.
Are the graphics core transistors part of the count or not? I'm sure they are, but what does all this nit-picking really do for us? Nothing IMO. Can you imagine if the reason for not including the transistor count as million is so the Intel executives that stated it as 1.
Frankly, I could care less, blame an engineer for providing an incorrect figure, done and over. Don't get me wrong here David, I like all the specs too, but does it really matter all that much?
They don't make separate die for what's a trivial difference. For your information, I'd like to direct your attention to the i and the i These are two processors in the Sandy Bridge line and the same series that have a difference of million transistors. On the surface, the difference is HD vs.
They have like specs. This is repeated throughout Intel's processor history so in my opinion, it's even more incorrect to suggest that Intel is locked into a specific die, TC or size for any series. Even for a reason as "trivial" as graphics presentation as you seem to think.
Intel has admitted publicly if you can read between the lines that they add un-necessary circuits to dies and that makes transistor count trivial in itself. The problem was caused by un-necessary circuits. CarWiz, Apparently David was not aware of the difference in the graphics core between the i and ik.
Your point brings up an interesting question, IMO. That is, how is a CPU constructed as a whole, out of individual pieces, or is the die if that is even the correct term unique to each processor. Common sense tells me that when working with "parts" processing cores, cache, IMC, graphics core, etc as small as these are, I wouldn't think they could be individually manipulated, even by machines.
For many other reasons that come to mind, I would think each CPU model must have it's own die. I am not sure if the the "unlocked" feature of the 'k' models something that is set or enabled during the CPU creation process, or is part of the architecture of the CPU itself. I doubt that the unused ones are added for any reason beyond they simply occur when working with something as tiny as the dies themselves are.
Given that we are dealing with tens and hundreds of millions of transistors, what's a few thousand extra here and there? These numbers are basically meaningless, since how would you verify that or count them? For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice. Register Help. Turn on suggestions. Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type. Showing results for. Search instead for. Did you mean:.
Transistor count of Core i7 2nd generation, "Sandy Bridge" processors. All forum topics Previous topic Next topic. It's only a suggestion. Copy link. BTW it claimed million. In response to idata. Here's a table I found from what ought to be a reliable source: The article that had this table also stated that each SB core had 55 million transistors.
Preview file. It's also not the first time I've heard the number. You don't know the answer to the question, may not care. I'd still like to know. The marketing folks at Intel call this Quick Sync technology. Sandy Bridge is all about integration and thus the clock generator has been moved off of the motherboard and on to the chipset, where its frequency is almost completely locked.
BCLK overclocking is dead. Thankfully for some of the chips we care about, Intel will offer fully unlocked versions for the enthusiast community. The lower end chips are fully locked. AMD will be free to compete for marketshare down there just as it is today. With the CPU comes a new platform as well. In order to maintain its healthy profit margins Intel breaks backwards compatibility and thus avoids validation with existing LGA motherboards, Sandy Bridge requires a new LGA motherboard equipped with a 6-series chipset.
You can re-use your old heatsinks however. Clarkdale left vs. Sandy Bridge right. Introduction The Lineup Overclocking: Effortless 4. Post Your Comment Please log in or sign up to comment. Privacy Policy. Contact Us. Terms of Use. Show Full Site. All rights reserved. Log in Don't have an account?
Sign up now Username Password Remember Me. Lost your password?
Comments