That's 1MB total, look here
I assumed the 65nm parts will see a 30% reduction across the board; so the standard 65nm X2 will use less than the 90nm, the "65W" version of the 65nm will use less (say 45W) and the EESFF 65nm will use less than the 90nm EESFF; tell me if that's not a correct assumption.
I guess so, especially if revision G was here to stay fo a while, but that's not the case. It will be replaced within 9 months by a new core, and the question is if AMD will/can do this in such short time. Maybe the 65 nm isn't that good yet? At least I guess they can, but they have other priorities as well. In the end, 35 W should be easier to achieve with 65 nm than with 90 nm. This die shrink will most of all be needed for T64 X2 since they're now stuck at 2 GHz, and a new version won't show up for at least a year AFAIK. But then again I don't think it's difficult for them to make a 65 nm SFF since they're already checks indivdual TDP on every CPU.
But who would really need a SFF CPU? (Not talking about Dell or HP.) As I've said before, 2.4 GHz 65 W = 2.0 GHz 35 W when you're undervolting and underclocking (well, almost, you get a few watts difference), so you're pretty much giving away money for a more limited product (lower multiplier) when you're buying a 35 W X2 3800+. The SFF cost â‚¬167 more than the 65 W 4600+
, it's more expensive than ever. People got like crazy when they first read about this CPU, but no one thought that a 65 W X2 4600+ (or even 4800+) was just as good in terms of power usage if needed, and much faster if needed. And I know that a certain Vcore/MHz/W is never guaranteed when changing stock values
, but I'd take that risk.
History will repeat itself, the 2.6 GHz, 65 W 5000+ - still lower price than the old SFF X2 3800+ - will probably be forgotten when a new X2 SFF shows up, which probably will be just as expensive and impossible to find as the old one. But if AMD stays at 2 GHz and 35 W, then prices will drop, of course.