Printable View
From everyone's fav site:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/09/...ed-orochi-die/
Odd thing about this shot... look at the top dies, and then look at the bottom ones. If we use the L3 as a bit of a ruler, it looks like the top cores are wider and have less L2...
That's Orochi, the future upgrade to Llano, with integrated GPU.
Bulldozer is the architecture, not the CPU.
this is not technically a bulldozer die shot (it's an architecture as florinmocanu said) as this is not zambezi, but orochi, the new fusion product with some bulldozer core... but anyway, it's a nice picture, bringing some infos...
Since when is Orochi a Fusion Part ??
Orochi is the internal Die/mask name - the Marketing names are Zambezi and Valencia.
Because this was a GF event, it is no wonder, that they used the internal Die/mask name.
However, the visuals are indeed different between top and button. Looks strange but I can see structural similarities between top and bottom parts of the left site, probably just a visual distortion.
Orochi is not fusion.
That's what I thought at first as well, but look at the L3 cache and use it a yardstick. The top dies go noticeably farther on the 'yardstick', How odd...Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
There's another thing. There are small little white-ish rectangular sections that stand out at the top of the top dies, and the bottom of the bottom dies. Three in total for each core, except on the bottom cores the die ends after the 3rd rectangle and turns into cache. On the top dies the core continues for awhile after the third structure.
Some get hans in here!
This is what Charlie says.
Zambezi is the code-name for the normal Desktop BD, Orochi is the code-name for the CPU+GPU Fusion product.Quote:
Orochi is the second gen Fusion part, an 8-core 4-module Bulldozer based chip. Expect it in late late 2011. This will be the part that gets AMD back into the server game.S|A
why does lower part differ from upper one?
http://www.semiaccurate.com/static/u...i_Die_Shot.JPG
can we have photo in thread, dont like to give them hits (petty i now)
Charlie is wrong, or at the very least misspoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Also, just use your eyes. There are four modules, one on each corner, and two cores per module. As Charlie said, this is a 4 core, eight module part. So where exactly is the supposed GPU?
Again, use the L3 as a yardstick. The upper cores obviously extend further up our virtual 'yardstick' than the lower ones do. Besides that, as I said before:Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Just look for awhile, you'll see it. Again, look at how far up the L3 each module goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
He's wrong as can be clearly seen from the die shot. There's no GPU on that die, just 8 cores/4 modules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
It's a visual distortion caused by the picture being taken from an angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
orochi is 4 module 8 core part without gpu...Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Anyone can see that the upper cores are wider than the lower, and that's not just a picture stretch/visual distortion. You can actually see more parts in the upper cores.
and it looks like theres alot less L2 for the top cores/modules aswellQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Hmm, you're right actually. Quite strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
lower are K10 cores, upper are bulldozer cores :)
Perspective corrected shot:
http://a.imageshack.us/img210/148/orochidieshot1.jpg
The upper two "modules" are definetly larger, but their respective L2 arrays are opposite of that. :shrug:
And they definitely have many visibly similar structures. A couple modules being larger I could write off, but the L2 also being smaller really has me scratching my head.
The upper ones are about 19% larger, now if they were 12% it could mean the upper ones are modules, and the lower ones being cores.
I fail to see the purpose for that ,tho.:shrug:
Where is Hans de Vries?:D
Judging from a quick use of the Photoshop measure tool, the top modules have ~14.5% greater area than the bottom ones. The bottom modules have ~ 26.5% more cache area.
Mats, I think it would be the other way around. Top ones would be full cores, while bottom ones would be modules with shared components to save on die size.
Another though... could be power related. Supposedly AMD has built in the the ability to fully shut off individual modules, however since one module always needs to be on you could save die space by taking that functionality out of one module. In this picture however, half the modules are sized differently...
bulldozer and bobcat on single die :D
Semi accurate does not open for me :(
Here is a roadmap for reference "First bulldozer based cpu :D"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/..._2008_2011.png
Here is another site with same/similar news
http://www.techeye.net/chips/amd-sho...ks-more-fusion