oz> loven'it when you talk hard metrics

OK, I'll oblige.

with everything factored in: cost, clock speed, core count, feature size, time ...

then on those two "world record" liquid nitrogen events, anyone with eyes can see that AMD is over 100x better with a workload than intel.

(105.2x to be specific...)

no wonder Taylor said FOAD to Intel.

-intel-

• $600
• one active core
• 14nm litho
• 7GHz top speed
• just achieved now
• gives $600/(1x7) = 85.7

-amd-

• $270
• 8 active cores
• 2.3x "worse"* feature size
• 9GHz top speed
• achieved 2 years sooner
• gives $270/(8x9x2.3x2) = 0.815

-result-

• 85.7/0.815 = 105.2

ergo, AMD is 105.2x better

since some guy from Finland already took "bogomips" for something else, I don't know what to call that aggregate comparative measure.

... how about "Aggregate Nanometric Gigacycles ROI'd Yearly" ?

A.N.G.R.Y.

yup.

that's what not being a licensee of POET's tech is gonna make 'em.

:-)

GLAL,

R.

* - or if you don't like "worse" feature size, call it "headroom for advancement"