MO MOSS wrote:
In short words SLO MOSS can understand, "Mo betta butter!", or "Bottomless Keg!". lol.
CPU design.
The first CPUs were designed to do mathematical calculations faster and more reliably than human computers.
Each successive generation of CPU might be designed to achieve some of these goals:
- higher performance levels of a single program or thread
- higher throughput levels of multiple programs/threads
- less power consumption for the same performance level
- lower cost for the same performance level
- greater connectivity to build larger, more parallel systems
- more specialization to aid in specific targeted markets
Re-designing a CPU core to a smaller die-area helps achieve several of these goals.
- Shrinking everything (a "photomask shrink"), resulting in the same number of transistors on a smaller die, improves performance (smaller transistors switch faster), reduces power (smaller wires have less parasitic capacitance) and reduces cost (more CPUs fit on the same wafer of silicon).
- Releasing a CPU on the same size die, but with a smaller CPU core, keeps the cost about the same but allows higher levels of integration within one VLSI chip (additional cache, multiple CPUs, or other components), improving performance and reducing overall system cost.
Pretty much the things in red above. When they do a die shrink it usually means it'll use less power to run that particular part, which in turn makes it run cooler. Sounds like one of them would have the CPU and GPU on one die similar to the APX 2500. Which should mean a savings in power, cheaper manufacturing costs (as I wouldn't think you'd need seperate manufacturing lines for the CPU and GPU and you're using less material) and a cooler running 360.
Remember my above post is just from what I understand, and I could be completely wrong. If anyone has a better understanding, by all means step up and edgeumacate us. Thanks.
Honestly... why bother?
