Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i5 32nm.. why is it missing so many transistors?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 31, 2010 5:29:31 PM

32nm i5 382+177=559 million transistors
45nm i5 774 million transistors
when both 32 and 45nm i5s have the PCI-E controller, when both have 2 memory channels, and when the new 32nm ones have even got integrated graphics, then why do the 32nm ones still have 215 million less transistors.. ok 32nms have half the cache [4MB compared to the 8MB].. so does it mean that the cache was talking all that real estate? :S 215 million transistors for 4MB for crying out loud?
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:37:06 PM

on chip cache is one of the biggest requirements for transistors - so this would seem to be correct for a chip with less cache
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:40:12 PM

45nm i5 is also a quad core.

32nm i5 is a dual.
Related resources
January 31, 2010 5:44:27 PM

ulysses35 said:
on chip cache is one of the biggest requirements for transistors - so this would seem to be correct for a chip with less cache


so its like 215 million transistors for 4MB :S almost 53 million transistors for 1MB :o  ?
January 31, 2010 5:46:26 PM

someguy7 said:
45nm i5 is also a quad core.

32nm i5 is a dual.


Damn :o  silly me.. :p  how on earth did i miss that point?? :p  thank goodness its not 53 million transistors per MB :p 
January 31, 2010 5:57:28 PM

but if we look at the older processors.. take Q9400 and Q9450 for example,
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35365&processor=Q9...
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=33923&processor=Q9...

Q9400 [456 million transistors] has 6MB of cache and Q9450 [820 million transistors] has 12MB of cache with a difference of 364 million transistors.. were the 364 millions transistors for that 6MB cache? it still brings it down to 60 million transistors per MB :S do the new 32nm i5s have disabled cores or something? :S
!