AMD to Start Production of Desktop "Bulldozer" Microprocessors in April.

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-05-2010, 02:39 PM
informal

AMD to Start Production of Desktop "Bulldozer" Microprocessors in April.

Quote:

AMD to Start Production of Desktop "Bulldozer" Microprocessors in April.

Engineering Samples of AMD's Next-Generation Desktop Chips Due Next Month
[11/05/2010 01:35 PM]
by Anton Shilov

Advanced Micro Devices will start production of its code-named Zambezi central processing unit (CPU) based on the highly-anticipated Bulldozer micro-architecture in April, 2011. Initially AMD plans to release 8-core microprocessors for desktops, but later in the second quarter of next year the firm intends to launch six-core and quad-core chips based on Bulldozer micro-architecture.

The first engineering samples of Zambezi chips that will be available for AMD's partners for testing will be released already in December, 2010, about a month from now, sources familiar with AMD plans told X-bit labs. Production candidates should be ready by February and the initial production of the company's first desktop microprocessors powered by the long-awaited Bulldozer micro-architecture is scheduled to start in April next year. Probably, the launch of the chip will occur around the same timeframe.

The first Zambezi microprocessors to be launched are expected to be eight-core products with 95W and 125W thermal design power as well as 8MB L3 cache. Later in the second quarter of 2011 AMD, according to sources with knowledge of the company's roadmap, will release six-core chips with 8MB L3 cache and four-core products with 4MB cache. All of the processors will feature TurboCore 2.0 technology, dual-channel DDR3 memory controller with up to 1866MHz memory support and will be compatible with AM3+ mainboards.

Eight-core Zambezi/Orochi features four dual-core Bulldozer modules, each of which is believed to have 2MB of shared level-two cache, that will share 8MB L3 cache. In total, the whole chip will pack in whopping 16MB of SRAM, a 77% increase from the current six-core microprocessors that have 9MB of cache in total.

Rest on the link.
11-05-2010, 02:42 PM
Nikolasz

Sounds like that cpu going to own with performance vs intel for next 5 years
11-05-2010, 02:48 PM
Nintendork

I think you need to edit the title xD

For one second I thought it was some spammer dude.

So we may see some cpu-z previews(and who knows, benchies?) right after Cayman... great for the hype.
11-05-2010, 02:50 PM
M.Beier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ego

Sounds like that cpu going to own with performance vs intel for next 5 years

It should have been launched same time as Gulftown is what I say.... I doubt it will even match the LGA2011 from Intel...
Like the integer structure though..
11-05-2010, 02:54 PM
zalbard

Woah, 8 cores for desktops right from the start!
So retail availability in June or so?
11-05-2010, 02:54 PM
Nikolasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

It should have been launched same time as Gulftown is what I say.... I doubt it will even match the LGA2011 from Intel...
Like the integer structure though..

I use sarcasm :rofl: :up:
11-05-2010, 02:55 PM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendork

I think you need to edit the title xD

For one second I thought it was some spammer dude.

So we may see some cpu-z previews(and who knows, benchies?) right after Cayman... great for the hype.

Yeah I made a mistake :(,it's fixed now.
11-05-2010, 02:59 PM
Dimitriman

So icanhaz bulldozer in mayz?
11-05-2010, 03:04 PM
slaveondope

8 cores 95w sounds nice:yepp:
11-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Nikolasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by slaveondope

8 cores 95w sounds nice:yepp:

Yea it does :)
11-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Mats

mmm... module unlocking.. mmmm..... *dreaming*
11-05-2010, 03:19 PM
Motiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by slaveondope

8 cores 95w sounds nice:yepp:

I take it that's a 4 module chip?
11-05-2010, 03:23 PM
Dimitriman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motiv

I take it that's a 4 module chip?

yep one die 4 modules 8 cores.
interlagos will be 2 dies 8 modules and 16 cores all within 125w:up: (but this for server only)
11-05-2010, 03:26 PM
god_43

Quote:

It is noteworthy that AMD's Zambezi microprocessors made using 32nm silicon-on-insulator process technology by Globalfoundries will be available earlier than the company's code-named Llano chips that combine current-generation x86 cores with current-generation DirectX 11 graphics engine on the same piece of silicon.

i thought llano was coming before BD? i guess they are having more problems with llano than originally thought?
11-05-2010, 03:28 PM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

i thought llano was coming before BD? i guess they are having more problems with llano than originally thought?

Or maybe it's about priority?
11-05-2010, 03:29 PM
demonkevy666

AM3+ Board will come before that.
am3 890fx short life
11-05-2010, 03:29 PM
Solus Corvus

I really want to see what the multicore performance with BD is like versus SB. I have to do some demanding deconvolution with 3d image stacks. A GPU would be best but with current software massively multicore will have to do.
11-05-2010, 03:29 PM
M.Beier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ego

I use sarcasm :rofl: :up:

Sorry buddy
Just my local forums, people actually believen that AMD X6 is faster then Gulftown.... Some...
11-05-2010, 03:32 PM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

Sorry buddy
Just my local forums, people actually believen that AMD X6 is faster then Gulftown.... Some...

well in certain areas it does preform better/on par, but no; overall the gulf-town is better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

Or maybe it's about priority?

true, could be the server market...they probably want to get server out before anything.
11-05-2010, 03:45 PM
Nikolasz

Cpu is not like woman. For life...

PPL
IF your os is really good configured you get top 25% owerall performance you can use amd or intel well.

Off topic:
I remember once in time when i was server admin for bf2 i load faster in bf2. Faster with athlonXP vs some dualcores.
It is all abut hw registers and knowing memory map...
11-05-2010, 03:49 PM
Mats

I like the thought of not having any IGP chipsets at all, which should mean no (unused) graphics ports on my next µATX,
tho I'm not sure if there's anything stopping the mobo makers from making an AM3+ 800-series board.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboa...n_Q2_2011.html
11-05-2010, 04:00 PM
MrMojoZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

well in certain areas it does preform better/on par, but no; overall the gulf-town is better.

Yeah even as an AMD fan no one should dissing the current Intel chips. The i7 in my latop works great for my needs. :D
11-05-2010, 04:08 PM
G.Foyle

Title should say "revenue production" not "production" :(
11-05-2010, 04:26 PM
Manicdan

why are the 6 core chips getting full L3 and 4 core getting only half? is this meaning they will build them in half size on purpose for better profitability rather than just having really bad 8 core chips?
11-05-2010, 04:34 PM
Computurd

yeah i7 is pretty bad arse, but my money goes where the performance crown lies. hell with loyalty, gimme MORE!!!
if this here bulldozer be bulldozin i will have two, please!
11-05-2010, 04:36 PM
slaveondope

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why are the 6 core chips getting full L3 and 4 core getting only half? is this meaning they will build them in half size on purpose for better profitability rather than just having really bad 8 core chips?

That didnt sit well with me either since the L2 is tied into each integer core on a module so one would think youd lose their L2 cache in cutting out a module.

EDIT: thought wrong was thinking they said 6 and 8 core would have the same total cache.
11-05-2010, 04:42 PM
BeepBeep2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why are the 6 core chips getting full L3 and 4 core getting only half? is this meaning they will build them in half size on purpose for better profitability rather than just having really bad 8 core chips?

Since L3 is shared with all cores and not associated to any single one the 6 cores retaining full L3 will probably be dysfunctional 8 core dies.

I'd say the 4 core will be it's own die, because it would cost less to manufacture. Depending on how yeilds go, they probably don't expect to have to dump 8 core chips into a 4 core segment though 6 cores would be more probable.
11-05-2010, 05:01 PM
Nikolasz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

why are the 6 core chips getting full L3 and 4 core getting only half? is this meaning they will build them in half size on purpose for better profitability rather than just having really bad 8 core chips?

With new tech there is allways problem, some transistor may brake inside cpu and half cpu is dead..Or lets say quarder maybe 1/6 or 1/8
I think is better to sell as mid range then in trash.
11-05-2010, 05:09 PM
Manicdan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ego

With new tech there is allways problem, some transistor may brake inside cpu and half cpu is dead..Or lets say quarder maybe 1/6 or 1/8
I think is better to sell as mid range then in trash.

i know thats why they are making 6 core versions, but they never seemed to chop up L3 before, it either was built with it, or built without it. so it seems the 4 core version is built for 4 max and given half of everything
11-05-2010, 05:54 PM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

yep one die 4 modules 8 cores.
interlagos will be 2 dies 8 modules and 16 cores all within 125w:up: (but this for server only)

Um, server will be lower than that. We will be in the same power/thermal ranges as today and we have a 12-core low power part.
11-05-2010, 05:56 PM
JF-AMD

FYI everyone. AMD will give some detail about bulldozer in the analyst day briefing next week. It would be best to wait for the actual news instead of speculating.
11-05-2010, 06:01 PM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

FYI everyone. AMD will give some detail about bulldozer in the analyst day briefing next week. It would be best to wait for the actual news instead of speculating.

Sounds good! Hope we will get some actual performance data. :up:
11-05-2010, 06:10 PM
JF-AMD

no performance data until launch.
11-05-2010, 06:11 PM
M.Beier

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

no performance data until launch.

Wondering if that is due the current performance :rolleyes:
11-05-2010, 06:32 PM
Tomasis

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

Wondering if that is due the current performance :rolleyes:

it is for not make intel piss in his pants :ROTF:
11-05-2010, 06:39 PM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

Wondering if that is due the current performance :rolleyes:

....really, lol really though? no it is Business, like poker, you don't show your hand until the end.
11-05-2010, 06:40 PM
qcmadness

That's a real surprise from AMD...

Originally thought that Llano will launch in Q2, and Bulldozer in Q3 / Q4.
11-05-2010, 06:42 PM
qcmadness

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

....really, lol really though? no it is Business, like poker, you don't show your hand until the end.

You can demo a Bulldozer at low clock to show you have working sample while hiding its real potential.
11-05-2010, 07:33 PM
Mad Pistol

Usually, major companies only build hype if the product royally sucks. Since AMD has let very few details slide about the performance of their product, we may be in for a treat with BD.

Here's to hoping Intel gets a kick in the pants. We need the competition to drive prices down.
11-05-2010, 08:11 PM
M.Beier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

Usually, major companies only build hype if the product royally sucks. Since AMD has let very few details slide about the performance of their product, we may be in for a treat with BD.

Here's to hoping Intel gets a kick in the pants. We need the competition to drive prices down.

Nvidia does not represent all companies... May I remind you of Gulftown :p:
11-05-2010, 08:15 PM
Sn0wm@n

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcmadness

You can demo a Bulldozer at low clock to show you have working sample while hiding its real potential.

and people wouldnt be surprise by anything else other then superpi so forget it .. amd will hide its power until launch day ... and i kinda understand why

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Pistol

Usually, major companies only build hype if the product royally sucks. Since AMD has let very few details slide about the performance of their product, we may be in for a treat with BD.

Here's to hoping Intel gets a kick in the pants. We need the competition to drive prices down.

we need competition to force intel to push the tech to its fullest ... like they did with the core 2 ... that's true competition ...
11-05-2010, 08:38 PM
Mad Pistol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

we need competition to force intel to push the tech to its fullest ... like they did with the core 2 ... that's true competition ...

Yep. That's the most important part. Still, I'd love to see Intel and AMD get locked in a brutal price war that drives chip prices into the ground. I mean, I love how AMD's offerings right now are fairly good and priced to steal, but Intel is dominating the market on the high end. If AMD delievers, Intel starts having to compete on price rather than all out performance... the consumer wins if both companies are neck and neck.
11-05-2010, 08:57 PM
MBomberZ1

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcmadness

You can demo a Bulldozer at low clock to show you have working sample while hiding its real potential.

You know how people are, especially around forums like this. You give them a glimpse of what it can do and people are at it trying to extrapolate a guesstimate and criticizing whatever that ends up being.. OR they will jump all over the fact that its only a simple test, exclaiming its held together with wooden screws and hamsters under that CPU cooler. I don't think a simple demo like that will gain them anything. At least for us folk. I understand their position in not showing their cards.
11-05-2010, 11:38 PM
madcho

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

FYI everyone. AMD will give some detail about bulldozer in the analyst day briefing next week. It would be best to wait for the actual news instead of speculating.

Just a question Why april ?
Why not it's not starting just after first sample yet ? :confused:

I know APM is good, but yield need most time around 6 months before going good. 4+6=10 so november 2011 ???? Why it's sayed end of Q2 and start of Q3 meaning june/july on xbitlabs ?

my guess was already end of june, but i was thinking bulldozer was starting in january.

I just hope evrything will be good for BD samples, i would like a new fail from AMD, they don't need it, and i don't need wait so more for buy a new CPU ;)
11-05-2010, 11:56 PM
JkS

This is getting exciting, only 5 months away, I'm hoping it isn't released on April 1st....:D
11-06-2010, 12:12 AM
FlanK3r

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

AM3+ Board will come before that.
am3 890fx short life

no, Thubans still will be...so, high mainstream CPUs not death with 890 chipset :). And Im for news socket, if will be better for performance Bulldozer (dont see in it problem)

Whoalaaaaaa, great news Informal, thx for it, nice morning for me;)
JF: of course, will watch stream at Analyst day :up:, I need to have all Zambezis to home:D (quad, hexa, eightcores, never sold it :) )
11-06-2010, 01:04 AM
Nikolasz

We ppl are in crossroads, amd or intel.
core2quads getting old now days, and if amd want to give market to intel(i3,i5,i7 exc.)......
11-06-2010, 01:50 AM
saaya

lots of cache... sigh... doesnt sound very promising...
whenever somebody put lots of cache on a chip in the past it was done to boost performance when tweaking the core wasnt possible or too much of a hassle...
this is THE new architecture and it comes with lots of cache instead of using as much die space for logic as possible... idk, to me this sounds like bad news...
then again, this is a server part anyways and not aimed at desktops, so i guess there lots of cores with lots of cache is good news and fp perf and ipc doesnt matter than much... i guess itll do well for servers... doesnt sound like itll do well in the desktop area at all though :/
11-06-2010, 01:53 AM
Oliverda

Looks like that the desktop parts will arrive earlier than the server ones. As I thought earlier...
11-06-2010, 02:33 AM
ubuntu83

Quote:

Originally Posted by JkS

This is getting exciting, only 5 months away, I'm hoping it isn't released on April 1st....:D

That would be a massive marketing failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Looks like that the desktop parts will arrive earlier than the server ones. As I thought earlier...

Yup Desktop will get the first priopity because magnycours is doing good in server market.
11-06-2010, 02:35 AM
Florinmocanu

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

lots of cache... sigh... doesnt sound very promising...
whenever somebody put lots of cache on a chip in the past it was done to boost performance when tweaking the core wasnt possible or too much of a hassle...
this is THE new architecture and it comes with lots of cache instead of using as much die space for logic as possible... idk, to me this sounds like bad news...
then again, this is a server part anyways and not aimed at desktops, so i guess there lots of cores with lots of cache is good news and fp perf and ipc doesnt matter than much... i guess itll do well for servers... doesnt sound like itll do well in the desktop area at all though :/

not true, some of the most powerful CPUs in the world have tons of cache (some IBM machines have crazy specs, but ofc, they are not x86 cpus), much more than 16 MB so that they can load huge chunks of data straight into the cpu. It's good to have lots of cache, if you can put it to good use.

I was actually thinking, cache need will increase in the future, because as the cpu gets faster, more data is being processed so big amounts of cache will be required.

16 MB of cache for 8 cores doesn't sound bad, I7s and Phenoms have 8-9 MB of total cache for 4 cores or 6, 16 MB for 8 looks just like a normal evolution to me.

it's 1MB of L2 for each core, 2MB per module and an extra of 8MB L3 shared among 8 cores, 1MB per core, which doesn't seem that much. I7 quads have 6 MB L3 for 4 cores, 1.5 MB per core, higher ratio than what bulldozer will have.
11-06-2010, 02:51 AM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.Beier

Wondering if that is due the current performance :rolleyes:

Policy is not to release benchmarks before launch.
11-06-2010, 02:52 AM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcmadness

That's a real surprise from AMD...

Originally thought that Llano will launch in Q2, and Bulldozer in Q3 / Q4.

Talk to me next week about this.
11-06-2010, 02:56 AM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by madcho

Just a question Why april ?
Why not it's not starting just after first sample yet ? :confused:

I know APM is good, but yield need most time around 6 months before going good. 4+6=10 so november 2011 ???? Why it's sayed end of Q2 and start of Q3 meaning june/july on xbitlabs ?

my guess was already end of june, but i was thinking bulldozer was starting in january.

I just hope evrything will be good for BD samples, i would like a new fail from AMD, they don't need it, and i don't need wait so more for buy a new CPU ;)

Why are you assuming that the article is correct. Remember when I said wait until next week? As I have said before, unless you are really in this industry (and, specifically at AMD) it would be hard for you to predict the actual schedules.
11-06-2010, 03:00 AM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

lots of cache... sigh... doesnt sound very promising...
whenever somebody put lots of cache on a chip in the past it was done to boost performance when tweaking the core wasnt possible or too much of a hassle...
this is THE new architecture and it comes with lots of cache instead of using as much die space for logic as possible... idk, to me this sounds like bad news...
then again, this is a server part anyways and not aimed at desktops, so i guess there lots of cores with lots of cache is good news and fp perf and ipc doesnt matter than much... i guess itll do well for servers... doesnt sound like itll do well in the desktop area at all though :/

I don't understand you guys. Intel has big caches and everyone complains that AMD's caches are too small. Then, if you think AMD has big caches you turn that into a negative.
11-06-2010, 03:05 AM
xdan

This masive L2&L3 cache it would be a fail if it is as slow or just a litte better than Phenom II/Thuban cache.
Let's not forget that Thuban L2 cache is 30-60% slower, and L3 cache is even 2-3 times slower than Lynnfield's cache...
And SB cache is faster than Lynnfied , not to count SB EX or Ivy Bridge on 22nm.
The best favorabile situation for Amd is that Bulldozer to be equal to SB.
i5 760...
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9...60o2000mem.png

Thuban

http://www.overbr.com.br/portal_images/everest3.jpg
11-06-2010, 03:39 AM
JF-AMD

Obsessing about the specs of individual pieces of an architecture without understanding the whole thing is really not going to get people any closer to understanding the whole thing.

Total performance per socket will be the yardstick to measure everything on. Short of that, everything is just idle speculation.
11-06-2010, 03:47 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I don't understand you guys. Intel has big caches and everyone complains that AMD's caches are too small. Then, if you think AMD has big caches you turn that into a negative.

who complaints that amd caches are too small? :confused:
first time ive heard this... people complain that amd has a notably lower ipc than intel...

im just saying, historically from what ive seen, new archs use cache more efficiently and focus on that, efficiency, and big caches were always a plan B to boost an existing architecture to refresh it later... to see a new arch launch with large caches seems odd to me... then again k8 launched with 2x the cache of K7...
11-06-2010, 04:03 AM
Tomasis

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

who complaints that amd caches are too small? :confused:
first time ive heard this... people complain that amd has a notably lower ipc than intel...

im just saying, historically from what ive seen, new archs use cache more efficiently and focus on that, efficiency, and big caches were always a plan B to boost an existing architecture to refresh it later... to see a new arch launch with large caches seems odd to me... then again k8 launched with 2x the cache of K7...

according to your logic, i7 must suck at big time :rofl:
11-06-2010, 04:05 AM
FlanK3r

this are only speculations...from only size cache u can say nothing.
11-06-2010, 04:15 AM
informal

I'll trust JF-AMD when he says we should wait Analyst Day.
As for the big caches and IPC comments,commenting on how fast or slow is BD in each of these categories is futile since it's all speculation until launch.We like speculating,but saying that somehow big cache is now suddenly a bad thing is double standard in my book(since the naysayers disregard the fact intel will be doing the same thing with their 8 core SB chips,adding massive L3).
11-06-2010, 04:29 AM
Mats

The first Conroe from 2006 had 2 MB L2 cache per core.

The first Bloomfield from 2008 had 2 MB L3 cache per core.

The first Sandy Bridge will have 2 MB L3 cache per core.

What's your problem.
11-06-2010, 04:40 AM
blindbox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

The first Conroe from 2006 had 2 MB L2 cache per core.

The first Bloomfield from 2008 had 2 MB L3 cache per core.

The first Sandy Bridge will have 2 MB L3 cache per core.

What's your problem.

L3 can be shared though. :rolleyes:

I don't see a problem with what he said. Thuban had constant L3 amount compared to Deneb.
11-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Policy is not to release benchmarks before launch.

So why we got SB Anandtech preview ? :shrug:
11-06-2010, 04:46 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

L3 can be shared though. :rolleyes:

What's with your attitude? We're talking about cache size, only.
11-06-2010, 04:48 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

So why we got SB Anandtech preview ? :shrug:

Maybe SB isn't made by AMD?:confused: Just guessing.
11-06-2010, 04:51 AM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

Maybe SB isn't made by AMD?:confused: Just guessing.

Intel do it, why not AMD ?
11-06-2010, 04:53 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

Intel do it, why not AMD ?

It must be because they have different policies.
Also, I think AMD have more to loose if they give away any performance specs half a year before launch.

I know I wouldn't.
11-06-2010, 04:58 AM
JF-AMD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

Intel do it, why not AMD ?

I can think of a lot of things that they do/did that we do not.

Just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's right.
11-06-2010, 05:00 AM
Dimitriman

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

who complaints that amd caches are too small? :confused:
first time ive heard this... people complain that amd has a notably lower ipc than intel...

im just saying, historically from what ive seen, new archs use cache more efficiently and focus on that, efficiency, and big caches were always a plan B to boost an existing architecture to refresh it later... to see a new arch launch with large caches seems odd to me... then again k8 launched with 2x the cache of K7...

historically, intel has always had more and has always depended more on cache than amd.
11-06-2010, 05:02 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

So why we got SB Anandtech preview ? :shrug:

As far as i know it was not approved by Intel, this is what i have said befour also.

The other possibility is that someone high up gave the order because there was NO talk's about it anywhere in the R&D center where i was and even if it was a marketing thing still we would have gotten some clue before the review was up.

Intel's policy as far as i know it is "No CPU info before launch, No sensitive info after launch, No sample microcode sharing, No added info to reviewers, No codename expose"

It is still possible someone high up gave a order and made it all possible but i am quite sure that marketing team was not involved. As a point of rule all Intel's R&D talk with each other all the time and in real time. :p:
11-06-2010, 05:11 AM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I can think of a lot of things that they do/did that we do not.

Just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's right.

I understand John

But, as a consumer who has to change his rig soon, what arguments will make me wait for Bulldozer ?
11-06-2010, 05:15 AM
blindbox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

What's with your attitude? We're talking about cache size, only.

And you decided so that we calculate cache size per core instead of total cache size. What's up with my attitude?
11-06-2010, 05:24 AM
xdan

Quote:

Intel do it, why not AMD ?

It must be because they have different policies.
Also, I think AMD have more to loose if they give away any performance specs half a year before launch.

I know I wouldn't.

Quote:

I understand John

But, as a consumer who has to change his rig soon, what arguments will make me wait for Bulldozer ?

+1
If Bulldozer it's really a "wonder" Amd should make a preview of performance on 15 january at SB lauch....If Bulldozer it's better than SB than Intel sales will be hurt , people will wait for Bulldozer or for Intel price cuts.
But if Amd will show nothing in january-february than Intel will continue to gain market share, and Amd i expect to have 1-2 quarter's very negatives because i expect i3's SB to be equal to an actual Phenom II X4, and i5's if they start at 179$ they will kill X6's.
The launch of Bulldozer is probably in june or july i expect...
11-06-2010, 05:26 AM
Florinmocanu

Blindbox, he was just showing that intel CPUs have a higher ratio of L3 cache per core than BD. It just shows that the general trend is to go high with cache since it helps a lot streamline the work, no useless waiting.
11-06-2010, 05:38 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

And you decided so that we calculate cache size per core instead of total cache size.

What's the alternative?
Don't you think it's logical add more cache when cores are added?
With your reasoning, we can stay at 8 MB in total forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

What's up with my attitude?

I was referring to your rolling eyes, when the discussions so far have been about size only.
11-06-2010, 05:45 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by xdan

If Bulldozer it's really a "wonder" Amd should make a preview of performance on 15 january at SB lauch....If Bulldozer it's better than SB than Intel sales will be hurt , people will wait for Bulldozer or for Intel price cuts.
But if Amd will show nothing in january-february than Intel will continue to gain market share, and Amd i expect to have 1-2 quarter's very negatives because i expect i3's SB to be equal to an actual Phenom II X4, and i5's if they start at 179$ they will kill X6's.

In the long run, maybe it's better for AMD to keep BDs performance secret until launch and letting Intel know as little as possible,
than recruiting possible BD buyers in January.
Just maybe.
11-06-2010, 05:53 AM
Dimitriman

lets also say it is not in amd's interest to cause an early release of socket 2011 sb based on expected performance of bd disclosed in january.
11-06-2010, 06:11 AM
hatter

I believe the reason why people want a glimpse of BD and its performance (only if a sneak peak) because AMD doesn't really have a stellar record in keeping promises and meeting deadlines on CPU side of things.

With Intel, I am sure SB is gonna be rock solid. The chips are already out there in the wild. we all know how they are performing. Enthusiasts usually get to know about what is in store for them when it comes to Intel CPUs. If Intel says SB is going to come in January and if I am waiting for the chip for new build, I can go out and get it in January. There is assurance in waiting here.

With AMD it's not so. I can wait till Q3 next year for BD and (I sincerely hope it's otherwise) may end up disappointed. This is the reason why people are clamoring for some info on AMD CPU.
11-06-2010, 06:22 AM
Sn0wm@n

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubuntu83

That would be a massive marketing failure.

Yup Desktop will get the first priopity because magnycours is doing good in server market.

how come ???
11-06-2010, 07:24 AM
Tomasis

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatter

I believe the reason why people want a glimpse of BD and its performance (only if a sneak peak) because AMD doesn't really have a stellar record in keeping promises and meeting deadlines on CPU side of things.

With Intel, I am sure SB is gonna be rock solid. The chips are already out there in the wild. we all know how they are performing. Enthusiasts usually get to know about what is in store for them when it comes to Intel CPUs. If Intel says SB is going to come in January and if I am waiting for the chip for new build, I can go out and get it in January. There is assurance in waiting here.

With AMD it's not so. I can wait till Q3 next year for BD and (I sincerely hope it's otherwise) may end up disappointed. This is the reason why people are clamoring for some info on AMD CPU.

yeah. thats why amd and intel are so different.

this is the reason that amd doesnt reveal info. Intel could know from january and already build new architecture for next generation when amd are busy to produce. I dont think early info of bulldozer will ever affect intel sales much due brand recognition for large base of people who buys computers. enthusiasts are not deciding factor for sales though.

imagine scenario for nvidia vs ati. it would be huge advantage over one if another gets performance data early.

building fabs for lower nm is another thing.
11-06-2010, 07:43 AM
blindbox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

What's the alternative?
Don't you think it's logical add more cache when cores are added?
With your reasoning, we can stay at 8 MB in total forever.

I was referring to your rolling eyes, when the discussions so far have been about size only.

Like I said, L3 cache are shared. Unless it's some heavily threaded software, other cores can use it.

I'm not saying we're going to stay with 8 MB forever. Look at AMD anyway, Thuban has 6MB L3, Deneb has 6 MB L3 as well. Just following the ratio indefinitely is going to be a waste after a time.
11-06-2010, 08:03 AM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

lots of cache... sigh... doesnt sound very promising...
whenever somebody put lots of cache on a chip in the past it was done to boost performance when tweaking the core wasnt possible or too much of a hassle...
this is THE new architecture and it comes with lots of cache instead of using as much die space for logic as possible... idk, to me this sounds like bad news...
then again, this is a server part anyways and not aimed at desktops, so i guess there lots of cores with lots of cache is good news and fp perf and ipc doesnt matter than much... i guess itll do well for servers... doesnt sound like itll do well in the desktop area at all though :/

So now you are critisizing performance is poor based on the amount of cache? You sure you're not trolling? Because I don't see how anyone could say that with a straight face. Ohhhhh wait, maybe you're just trying to start a flame war! I see what you're up to. :)
11-06-2010, 08:15 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

Like I said, L3 cache are shared. Unless it's some heavily threaded software, other cores can use it.

Well you're the only one caring about if it's shared in this thread, I'll leave you to it.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

I'm not saying we're going to stay with 8 MB forever.

So what's wrong with talking about cache per core?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindbox

Look at AMD anyway, Thuban has 6MB L3, Deneb has 6 MB L3 as well.

Yeah, you managed to pick one of the few exceptions, but you fail to see the reason why.
X6 would have more cache if the die wasn't so huge to begin with (or, possibly due to latency issues).
Breaking 400 mm^2 wouldn't have made much sense, don't you think?
11-06-2010, 08:59 AM
Mav451

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatter

I believe the reason why people want a glimpse of BD and its performance (only if a sneak peak) because AMD doesn't really have a stellar record in keeping promises and meeting deadlines on CPU side of things.

With Intel, I am sure SB is gonna be rock solid. The chips are already out there in the wild. we all know how they are performing. Enthusiasts usually get to know about what is in store for them when it comes to Intel CPUs. If Intel says SB is going to come in January and if I am waiting for the chip for new build, I can go out and get it in January. There is assurance in waiting here.

With AMD it's not so. I can wait till Q3 next year for BD and (I sincerely hope it's otherwise) may end up disappointed. This is the reason why people are clamoring for some info on AMD CPU.

Agreed. All this talk about AMD holding its cards close to the chest is having the opposite effect on me. The more secretive they are, the less confident I am in AMD. You need to give enthusiasts SOMETHING to look at. It's half a year until next April.

*edit* - Yeah I know he's reiterated in the [H] thread that there's not gonna be any indication, at all, for performance until launch.
11-06-2010, 09:28 AM
Sn0wm@n

cache doesnt mean anything by itself .. its an overglorified buffer on the cpu ... that's it .... without knowing its implication with the rest of the architecture we wont know too much .. and since we barely know anything about the architecture .. how can anyone even comment on how much cache is too much or not
11-06-2010, 09:28 AM
informal

Just in:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/11/...zer-next-week/

Quote:

AMD to demo Bulldozer next week
And they pulled it in a bit
by Charlie Demerjian

November 6, 2010

THERE HAVE BEEN rumblings of AMD's Bulldozer core being pulled in, and some very wild dates are floating. It is true that they are pulling it in, but not nearly as much as some speculate.

Short story, Llano is set for a late Q2 introduction. Orochi, the first Bulldozer part was coming in Q3. This latest adjustment puts Orochi in Q2, we hear April or May for the first few units, likely before Llano. This is probably going to be announced at analyst day next week when Orochi will be publicly demoed. That is the big surprise for attendees.

The rest is at the link.And I guess the surprise is now spoiled :( .The good news is BD is coming sooner,ready to stomp over certain structures over rivers :D
11-06-2010, 09:35 AM
-Sweeper_

You will very likely see it later in Q2 in low volume form, and Q3 will bring real volume.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/11/...zer-next-week/
11-06-2010, 09:37 AM
informal

Wow you are fast /sarcasm
:D :D :D
11-06-2010, 09:42 AM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

So now you are critisizing performance is poor based on the amount of cache? You sure you're not trolling? Because I don't see how anyone could say that with a straight face. Ohhhhh wait, maybe you're just trying to start a flame war! I see what you're up to. :)

dude, thats not saaya.
11-06-2010, 09:55 AM
Lightman

Good news then! Thanks for info Informal!

I'm looking forward to AMD's Analyst Day even more now :up:
11-06-2010, 11:27 AM
Stukov

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

dude, thats not sayaa.

lol i didnt quite catch that either
11-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Mats

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

dude, thats not sayaa.

What do you mean?:confused:
11-06-2010, 12:33 PM
radaja

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

So now you are critisizing performance is poor based on the amount of cache? You sure you're not trolling? Because I don't see how anyone could say that with a straight face. Ohhhhh wait, maybe you're just trying to start a flame war! I see what you're up to. :)

come on?saaya trolling or trying to start a flame war?ridiculous
he just stated his opinion.
perhaps your defender pants are on too tight:shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mats

What do you mean?:confused:

what i said above,just ridiculous
11-06-2010, 01:15 PM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by radaja

come on?saaya trolling or trying to start a flame war?ridiculous
he just stated his opinion.
perhaps your defender pants are on too tight:shrug:

what i said above,just ridiculous

^this
11-06-2010, 02:48 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by radaja

come on?saaya trolling or trying to start a flame war?ridiculous
he just stated his opinion.
perhaps your defender pants are on too tight:shrug:

what i said above,just ridiculous

Yeah, I read that after and it didn't really sound like I intended. Should have deleted it. :p: Time for a break! :D Apologies saaya.
11-06-2010, 02:54 PM
freeloader

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I can think of a lot of things that they do/did that we do not.

Just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's right.

It means their proud of what they've accomplished. I guess AMD is not.

That's the message you send to people when you're unwilling to share any sort of performance data.
11-06-2010, 03:05 PM
Dimitriman

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeloader

It means their proud of what they've accomplished. I guess AMD is not.

That's the message you send to people when you're unwilling to share any sort of performance data.

youre not looking at it the right way. what can amd do if intel releases early benches? nothing as they are trying hard to beat their own schedule. now what can intel do with 5 month early info on bulldozer? a lot.
11-06-2010, 04:56 PM
freeloader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

youre not looking at it the right way. what can amd do if intel releases early benches? nothing as they are trying hard to beat their own schedule. now what can intel do with 5 month early info on bulldozer? a lot.

Nothing. Intel is set with Sandy Bridge and can't change it now. Sure they could change Ivy Bridge for more performance, but by then, AMD should also be working on a second generation BD part.
11-06-2010, 05:32 PM
Sn0wm@n

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeloader

Nothing. Intel is set with Sandy Bridge and can't change it now. Sure they could change Ivy Bridge for more performance, but by then, AMD should also be working on a second generation BD part.

but if intel could get ivy bridge or get a new stepping or a small change to sandy bridge midway through the platform integration roadmap .... and that small change would boost their advantage over the market by 10% would you call that nothing???

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:49 AM.

XtremeSystems