It's odd that they improve performance by releasing newer stepping exclude the factor of frequency increase, there wasn't any precedent like this before, I'll take with a grain of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Printable View
It's odd that they improve performance by releasing newer stepping exclude the factor of frequency increase, there wasn't any precedent like this before, I'll take with a grain of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So, the first shipment (B2 ?) is not the one to keep an eye out for ? Not sounds encouraging ...Quote:
Either way, it looks like that stepping is the one to keep an eye out for
Depends on what you are expecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
If you want to know what BD really is, the next stepping seems to offer the answer according to Charlie.
On the other hand the current BD seems to be competitive but nothing dramaticly better. So if you are looking for an alternative for intel, they seem to to have it at inital launch.
Considering they talk about major integer improvement with a new stepping would indicate their si something amiss now that hinders performance substantially..
I don't buy the news about new revision with higher integer performance. That would be a TLB sized fiasco.
edit: I also don't get why BD should have just as bad yields as Llano, fact is that the graphics chip on an SOI process is the problem for Llano. Or so I heard.
Bulldozer is in dev since 5-6 years, AMD discovers now, just before the launch, that there are some misses ? I don't buy it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
B2 or C0
Always no benchs of Interlagos ? :)
no more Komodo?
http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/h...ces-it-vishera
oopppssss, this is a Zambezi thread
oh look it's shipping already
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD...ron,13376.html
But AMD surely didn't have working silicon samples for 5 years. There are multiple steps in developing a processor from ground up and each step (not stepping ;)) can bring in its own bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
So if something is not working (who knows, maybe a feature B depending on feature A and A was not ready until stepping B1...), it may still be disabled and debugged->enabled with a later stepping. It's not about adding features (this is for Piledriver, Steamroller..), but about enabling only the working features. The transistors are there.
Do you remember that Hyperthreading is said to have already been included in Willamette but was not enabled before Northwood came?
Of course he remembers, but he has a selective memory when it comes to Green and Blue, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
To be honest, at this time, i was more green and I never had a P4 processor ... :shrug:
All I want to see is competition in CPU world, don't mislead dude ;)
Matthias is right but desktop launch is next month and I'm starting to feel worried like many peoples, time is running ...
@JF-AMD do Bulldozer parts have ACP and TDP or will they reach TDP on Turbo?
I don't buy that. There are always new steppings, typically every 6 to 9 months. However, new architectures have big increases in performance. Speed bumps are typically 3-5%. That sounds completely backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
We will still have both ACP and TDP. With Turbo CORE off, the power will be ACP. Wtih Turbo CORE on, the power will look more like TDP, but will not reach TDP in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
Thanks JF.
And congratulations for shipping the server parts. :)
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/...ssage/36723353Quote:
As I mentioned before but has delayed the launch date Zambezi is now fixed (but I have not mentioned the exact date to be seen).
The delay I had with internally because we do not have final silicon, the media samples are still not well defined or something and know that distributors have nothing concrete to pre-order (and other signals that I do not post). This process takes place all in one month and a half off for the launch. So if one of these items are missing is a paper launch with no samples. Incidentally, I still have a few indicators that tell me that something is still not going well.
Mass Production of the final stepping B2G should soon start but it is not yet known and when it is actually available.
Benchmarks indications:
compared 2600K :(
compared 1100T :S
Olivon I have no idea what is that guy saying benchmarks wise. He admits they have no final silicon in hands and then he says the samples they have don't even compare well to 1100T.
The guy is pretty reliable... however his performance remarks are on the indications of B2(F) samples. The other poster just did selective reading and copying posts from him.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Benchmarks zijn met recente B2(F) stepping. Het zijn ook indicaties, echter geloof ik niet in wonderen en zal die laatste stepping niet veel veranderen.
ok that's it. I am definitively settling for an i7 because all these latest benchmarks prove for sure that Bulldozer will be slower than 1100T!
:rolleyes:
Slower than 1100T and will cost from 36%(best case scenario for buyer) to 57% more- 260/300$ for FX8150 vs 190$ for 1100T. Figure out this mystery lol.
No mystery. The price will be lower than that.... I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Lower than 260$?? Not what AMD thinks apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
This giveaway contest appeared relatively recently. AMD knows the actual performance of FX line and where it can price it.Quote:
7. Prizes:
Top tier prizes: Five (5) AMD FX series eight-core processors. Approximate Retail Value: $300 USD each.
Second tier prizes: One hundred (100) collectible Ruby dolls. Approximate Value: $25 USD each.
BTW when Zambezi launches (X8/X6/X4) ,Thubans will go down in price immediately. So even if 8150 is priced somewhat below 260$ ,which I doubt, relative perf/$ ratio will still remain the same. You will have to pay 36+% more for X8 Zambezi to allegedly get approximately the same performance as 1100T and this is what many "sources" with the "ES" are indicating. This is illogical.
The point 7 might be wrong if AMD got some bad numbers in the final stepping and want to offer a good performance/price ratio...
Anyway, there is something much more interesting in the link you sent. It's located on point 4 ;)
I doubt final stepping can do worse than what AMD had with previous steppings(pre B2,the ones that supposedly were slower than X4 Deneb lol). As for point number 4,the ending date was recently changed :). IIRC it was somewhere in September (mid September,maybe even 12th). Now is October the 12th. Fits with the recent schedule update on Q4 launch instead of Q3. They may as well do a "formal soft launch" in late September and real availability is mid October.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
if the x4 BD costs close to or more than an x6, it should show a very scary sign of how much of a single threaded monster BD will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
October 13 ? :eek: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
I'll stick with my C2 955 till Q1 2012 and see if a new stepping for Zambezi is release, as will be according to that article. I kinda figured they would do this with Zambezi like with Phenom. If nothing worth getting is released I'll officially move to Intel!
That's a good question. Real availability is still totally unknown, even by big e-tailers. I heard everything between "mass availability at day 1" to "Yields are bad. Don't expect big quantities until next stepping. January '12 at best.".Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
What 'The Source' said (google translated)
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/...s/1412361/lastQuote:
new figures have just been given and it appears to be 6.6% are (output / production, says nothing about sales!). The old AM3 Phenom accounts for 3.7% share. Llano 34% of which 30% goes to EMEA, 30% to China and the rest is distributed among the rest of the world.
Seems AM3+ FX Series have 6.6% of total shipment quantity, the old phenom have 3.7% and Llano for 34% at the meanwhile.
BTW maybe it's a positive situation that 45nm phenom EOL much earlier than expected, which means the 32nm production catch up with the mature-enough 45nm.
Well since it slipped from mid June to mid September/October then it's normal that output is down from ~10% to projected 6.6%. This will in turn be 2x of what Phenom II will amount for,pretty decent quantities for Q4.
...so did anyone pre-order yet?
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11064/
No until i see the difference in games between FX-8000/6000/4000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
Thats the same thing that has been going around for quite a while now
Old rumor, but your post remind me of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
Such those weird spec like 8130p have been denied from latest roadmap, but iirc some immature bios continuously recognized the newer spec like 8150 to those weird spec. Maybe those weren't just rumor, but ever 'existing' part, even more weird is that old spec comes with older stepping, it's obvious that they're not for retail, just ES and have done tests. Why those early internal samples have full name, any necessity? Nowaday the newer roadmap show not only 8150, even some more new spec like 4170, which has 4.2Ghz stock, this even faster than 4120 which appeared in chart that leaked in July:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2igox8k.jpg
Seems to me like they're respinning just for frequency but not only for repairing chips bug(if there's any), when finish a spin they rename those chips(any necessity?), but bios are old and do some wrong spec recognition.
http://img.donanimhaber.com//images/...g2_dh_fx57.jpg
Considering those slides are NDA tighted and leaked late, presume the latest name have been changed internally for a while but still behind the door, when final shipping those known spec will no longer available.
The hunt for Red October!Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
bro take a look at this
http://chinese.vr-zone.com/index.php...8120-09092011/
fx8120 benchmark by VR-ZONE
That poor fx8120 is decently slower than 1100T. In C10 it is ~7% slower than 3.3Ghz X6,in C11.5 ~12% slower than 3.3Ghz X6 and in wprime 2.24x slower. Does anyone believe AMD will launch FX chip that can't even beat 2 years old X4 let alone X6?Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
i wouldnt trust it, was told it's most likely fake!
IDK, but VR-ZONE normally is quite accurate with news since I have join that forum. Hopefully this is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Hi JF. I am getting attacked on my Swedish forum SweClockers.com. I told them to not believe any "leaked" benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Now they putting up the SiSoft Sandra result's on the newspage and totally agree it really is the final sample benchmarks. I told them they're wrong because of the numbers and whay you told us. I wrote this and look at the response...
Scroll down to the post 12:31 from me
http://translate.google.com/translat...23post11343257
Whay can I tell them, any message from you?
It's a big forum and we should have you there!
From Anand's twitter account:
So yeah,all those results showing BD ES slower than Bobcat/Llano are useless.Quote:
anandshimpi
B2.G is where AMD is at today, no word on whether or not that's final, it's close though
11 hours ago
anandshimpi
This is why we never did an early preview of Bulldozer on AT, no sense in putting out numbers that may not be representative
11 hours ago
anandshimpi
And I don't believe the final decision has been made to go to market (desktop) with B2.G either, will know for sure in the coming weeks
11 hours ago
anandshimpi
I'm not saying anything about absolute performance, just keep in mind that silicon that's older than ~2 weeks isn't production worthy
11 hours ago
anandshimpi
Beware of any leaked Bulldozer benchmarks, unless you're running B2.G you're not looking at shipping performance
lol, did u seen these wprime 1024m?:D Slow as Athlon X3. Nice cripled results :)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Whoaw, this is a total mess :(
SweClockers is and has always been a joke when it comes to trustworthy news.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
It's unfortunate that the site has a such big influence over other less knowledgeable Swedish "enthusiasts". AMD may have lost many potential customers in Sweden because of the leaked news.
a lot of people online are gullible and will believe in anything that even remotely matches their expectations or opinionsQuote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
there's very little you can tell a bunch of idiots who believe something that served to them blindly.
Honestly speaking I think AMD is to blame too. They seeded their partners with these ES that were not final products.Ok ,they didn't want ANYONE to know how good/bad Bulldozer is,I understand that. But they must have known that some of the data based on these non-final ES will leak on the web and will cause an avalanche of hate towards them.Now they are left with a pile of crock *** being tossed at them and they can't do anything about it since we are still 1 month from desktop launch. They can't leak anything official since this is not the way the operate .They can refute this (what JF does all the time) but "kids on the internet" are cruel and don't trust officials more than they trust some random Chinese guys with non-final products in their hands that perform worse than Bobcat.
Totally agreed. AMD clearly isn't able to understand that you have to keep the enthousiasts fed. Leak enough to still their hunger. Enthousiasts are the people that make buy decisions for lots of others and are often professionally involved in the IT sector. AMD shouldn't give them the cold shoulder for so long. Where is their public relations team? If I remember correctly, JF-AMD does the forums in his own time. That should tell you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Especially now server parts are being shipped there is no reason to withold results any longer. Around the launch of K8 people found out it was a good architecture because of Opteron benchmarks. Get some Opterons to major reviewers and get it over with.
Informal, that's nonsense. Partners need CPUs in order to test their complementing products such as motherboards and complete systems, final silicon or not. The engineering reasons for sending out ES chips trumps any beef you might have with them as an enthusiast. You're looking at it purely from the perspective of someone who wants to know about the product early.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I have no beef with them. I just say they are also to blame for this FUD campaign that started 2 months ago. Now they are kinda in defensive mode with folks like JF (who doesn't even need to do this as he is not paid for that) rebutting things over and over again.
Product will launch when it's ready. We all understand this.
I think his point is that AMd should do some damage control at the point where bad results are getting leaked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
AMD turns schizophrenic with all the guys from Austin telling "no no, that's fake ! that's not real performance ! not real performance ! Everything is fake !". Well, the truth is : since last week, AMD is now communicating under NDA about the launch planning & about performances to sales and media partner. With their own benchmarks with final processors on many "awesome" slides. If their own slides were leaked right now, they will tell everybody it's not real, shipping performance, just fake ! fake ! fake ! Guess why...
Because performance sucks?
You get a cookie :D
AMD sales team is not dumb : if you want to have an idea of performance, just look at the price tag. AMD wants to be competitive with Intel. So you will find CPUs with same performance and same price tag than Intel. About stepping, things are quite easy : there was a performance issue in B1 and previous steps. Perfs were down 10-15% than expected on SOME benchmarks. This bug was solved in B2 stepping. So, if you use a B2 stepping WITH a BIOS newer than mid-Aug, you have "shipping" performances. If not, you have ~6-7% lower than expected overall. Protip : B2 step is CPUID F.1.2.
You mean this is shipping performance? B2 stepping,even if it's 6-7% slower or even 15% slower,it sucks badly since it is slower/or barely equal to 1100T. Rumored price from AMD themselves 300$. Rumored price from one dude having them listed on his own site : 260$. Todays 1100T price :190$ (will go down after Zambezi launches). If as you say price reflects performance then you will have 1100T performance (+-10/15%) with 30+% higher price. Is this logical?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
In the link above (Vr-zone),just one glance at C10 64bit single core test tells you something is off. You have a single Bulldozer core using 256bit FPU for itself and running at 4Ghz.It gets 3769 pts with some of the features turned off in BIOS(best result they managed). Now ,take a look at single Thuban core, running at 3.7Ghz in same benchmark. It scores 4103pts. That is 17% faster than what Zambezi would get at 3.7Ghz and still faster (8%) than what Zambezi gets at 4Ghz. This is the brand new,double sized,improved,SMT capable FlexFP,with free reg-reg moves(no cost instruction according to AMD), and million other improvements versus K10? Yeah,call me crazy but I don't think so.
I will not comment those benchmarks, but the 1100T is not a competitor for the FX-8150. AMD don't want to be competitive with their old-gen EOL CPU (ie 1100T), they want to be competitive with Intel CPUs. So it makes sense to adjust the price of the new FX-8000 series to the price of an Intel CPU with similar performance. The price is the key : get the price, check on the Intel price-list for a similar price and you should have an idea of performances.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
PS : Again, the $260-$300 range is just rumor...
Ok,if the 260-300$ price range is just a rumor(from official AMD website BTW...) ,what is the price range then? Below 200$? Between 200 and 260? According to now removed vr-zone results,that poor fx8120 can't even touch 1100T in multithreaded applications,what chance it has against 2500K(if this is what you imply). Even 8150 has no chance against 2500K,maybe even 2400. Makes zero sense to me. 315mm^2 die,slower than 4 years old K10 in multithreaded workloads AND single threaded workloads,slower than 225mm^2 SB QC without SMT (with GPU counted in the die area!). Is this the brand new,area efficient high-performance x86 core that AMD has been working on for 6-7 years now. If it is,then they failed and need to rethink what they have been doing for 7 years.
From a micro-architectural point of view, there is some nice ideas in Bulldozer. But it seems they failed to finally implement what they expected at first. The concept of "cores" for Bulldozer is just a marketing BS. A FX-8150 is a 4-cores CMT-based CPU with a dual Integer cluster. CMT architecture is not something new and noboby called a cluster a "core" before. AMD just renamed a core "a module" and a cluster "a core" in order to amaze ppls with "8-core CPU !!". Now what's next ? Calling an ALU "a core" ? After all, why not ? So the FX-8150 could be a 16-cores CPU as well.
Edit : As a proof, if you look at their own patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080209173.pdf), you see they know exactly what is a "Core" and what is a "Cluster". So why calling a cluster a core ? For marketing purpose of course, but that's still BS.
Well actually I do think they are cores. Each "core"/cluster can retire 4 cops(macro ops) so each module is ,like they call it,an optimized dual core. But all this doesn't matter if performance is not there. Why bother? They will end up behind intel even more and they will be 3 generations behind by the time IB launches. I couldn't care less how they call their cores if these cores performed at least better than K10 ones. By the look of things right now,these cores will be much slower (than K10) and frequency potential will not be nearly enough to catch up. I still have a hard time believing they knew this all along and still went with it. Note that we re not talking 5% slower than K10 here.We are talking A LOT slower in both integer and SIMD.
But let's just wait and see what happens. On paper it is indeed a novel idea and a promising one too. Current numbers do look very bad,but maybe things improve with the retail chips.
A core must be able to handle INT, FP and SIMD SSEx instructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Multithreaded applications generally use SIMD, so when all the "cores" are in use, that's equal to 4 computing units. Are you aware of many MT application that massively use Integer units ?
Each "core" can do all of those you said it must do. It can do INT in the "core" part and FP/SIMD in the FlexFP part. FLexFP part can be dedicated or shared so it can be run in SMT mode (shared) or all 256bit (2x FMAC) can be "given" to a core that requests it if other core has no FP/SIMD instructions scheduled. So in MT case with SIMD you actually have 8 threads running on 8 FMACs,each of which is 128bits wide(and each of which can do add or mul or fma). The fact that each FMAC has (on paper) half the potential execution resources of one K10 core doesn't make it any "lesser core".It only *could* make it slower than K10,nothing more nothing less. It still runs 8 threads across 8 hardware execution units(8 128bit FMACs). Before,we were under impression these FMACs would end up being faster than each K10 core. Now,as recent leaks show,each FMAC will end up slower,sometimes a lot ,then one K10 core(actually FPU in this core).Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Ang once again SweClockers.com presenting "Bulldozer news"
http://translate.google.com/translat...mbezibulldozer
This maybe be a dumb question but, is it possible that the OS (Windows) would need an update because of the BD design in order to properly support it?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Honestly, who cares? It's just a reason for not posting or reading there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
I've never been interested in Swedish computer forums, I see no point in it because they're at least one step behind this forum 99 % of the time.
Don't you see how frustrated you get? Let it go.
There's always someone who is wrong on the internet, you can't cure them all.
Yeah, JF talks about "Final drivers"- what's that about?Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
OS might need an update but this is not a reason why these samples perform like they do. Something else is wrong (or it's just they way the design works.. .we don't know).
I see, thank you for the reply. I think everyone should ask themselves why would AMD bother with something that is slower than what they currently have. They would drop the project long ago if it really was slower/same performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In some aspects it does provide somewhat better performance than their previous six core design(yes,even these poor ES). But then again,if this is rather an exception then the rule,why would they bother?
Exactly, even a die shrink of K10 would probably be better than wasting money for something you already have. It's best to wait for the final results.
EDIT:
Anand's twitter:
Quote:
anandshimpi anandshimpi
Beware of any leaked Bulldozer benchmarks, unless you're running B2.G you're not looking at shipping performance
5 hours ago
anandshimpi anandshimpi
I'm not saying anything about absolute performance, just keep in mind that silicon that's older than ~2 weeks isn't production worthy
5 hours ago
anandshimpi anandshimpi
And I don't believe the final decision has been made to go to market (desktop) with B2.G either, will know for sure in the coming weeks
5 hours ago
anandshimpi anandshimpi
This is why we never did an early preview of Bulldozer on AT, no sense in putting out numbers that may not be representative
5 hours ago
Wow someone with common sense...........Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Like i said before I discussed this face to face with engineers at AMD, BD is a native 4 core 8 thread part.
and then the lynch mob got mad..........
new AMD tri-cores beats old hex-cores!!!! is it really possible!!! amd is f*ing awesome!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
lol
its all perspective, perf per dollar of 4 threads with a typical overclock is what i care about. that might mean a 4100 or 8100, not sure yet.
I hope we get a price range soon for FX parts.This should tell us enough about performance.
the shared L1 instruction cache is what comes to mind for me, ever time i read your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
At an estimate die size of 315-330mm^ it's f*ing FAIL....:down:Quote:
new AMD tri-cores beats old hex-cores!!!! is it really possible!!! amd is f*ing awesome!!!!
lol
its all perspective, perf per dollar of 4 threads with a typical overclock is what i care about. that might mean a 4100 or 8100, not sure yet.
And i don't think that BD X6 - tricore whatsoever will be better than Thuban. Equal i quess .
Thuban X8 on 32nm with 8MB L3 cache would probably came in same die size. With a better IMC and faster L2 cache, i might wonder if that 8 true core design could do...
And now about crippled ES, in every industrys there are so called "prototypes", but for an example a car initialy designed to run with 300KM/H as a prototype wouldn't go with 140KM/H. May be 240-260KM/H.
BD ES are running just pathetic. If that initial true performance than no new revision can boost the performance with 50%.
And why let false rumours spread out.
It's not AMD a company craving for PROFIT?
It's this a good strategy?
AMD at least should make an official anouncement saying: "Folks, retail will have much more performance, don't trust anything on net."
thuban x8 would not get the same single threaded perf of current competition, a 2100 would still be a better choice for gamers. BD however should have much stronger IPC when a second thread isnt running on the core/module, and its being designed for very aggressive turbos which the old stars cores were not built for.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
why dont you think BD will be able to beat thuban thread/core vs core? the architecture is stronger and the frequency is higher. the only real issue is when it comes to having those extra threads running will it bring average perf down to be less than the old stuff, which i dont think would be a problem. an x8 BD should be much more than 33% faster than thuban with 33% more cores/threads. its also smaller than thuban by a pretty noticeable amount, around a whole cores worth. so a thuban x5 would have similar mm2 and give us a basic idea on perf/mm2 increase AMD was able to get.
And who says and who can prove that BD will have single thread performance equal to SB or better?
Or even better than Thuban?
I don't think that you understood what i meant .
An improved Phenom II arhitecture should have interesting performance: reduced latency L2& L3 cachem better IMC, larger L3 cache -8MB). Just some tweaks as Nehalem -> SB.
And probably would have better yelds, because is something well known and so on.
Aggresive turbos without a much better performance per clock means nothing.Quote:
nd its being designed for very aggressive turbos which the old stars cores were not built for.
why dont you think BD will be able to beat thuban thread/core vs core? the architecture is stronger and the frequency is higher. the only real issue is when it comes to having those extra threads running will it bring average perf down to be less than the old stuff, which i dont think would be a problem. an x8 BD should be much more than 33% faster than thuban with 33% more cores/threads. its also smaller than thuban by a pretty noticeable amount, around a whole cores worth. so a thuban x5 would have similar mm2 and give us a basic idea on perf/mm2 increase AMD was able to get.
X6 1100T has 400Mhz Turbo- enough, performance per clock it what lacks.
2 cores Phenom X2 against 1 module BD at same clock will be something interesting to compare.
You miss the point that Thuban is on 45nm and BD is on 32nm. As i sad probably Thuban X8 on 32nm shoud have same die size as BD.
All what you say was easy to believe in march- april, but not now, after 4-5 months of just patethic leaks, lies, delays, and so on.
improved PII is Llano (minus L3)Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
i dont know if it will be better than SB in single threaded tests (sorry if i implied that), i do EXPECT it to be better than thuban due to clocks and previous details provided.
if 6 BD threads = 6 thuban threads, and 2 cores gets 195% scaling while 2 BD threads on one core/module gets 180%, then a single core/thread of BD is ahead by +15% already because we KNOW the scaling of BD is not the same as true independent cores. so if all cores being used is equal, then less cores being used must be stronger.
My thinking about all performance questions:
1) older x6 Thuban with die size 370+mm could be better than FX 8150 with 315mm size?
2)older x6 Thuban with 3.3 GHz/3.7 GHz (half of threads) could be better than FX 8150 with 3.6 GHz/4.2 GHz?
3)If yes, why is not 32nm Phenom II x8 with die size simillary as FX? It would been finally better (and at 32nm maybe could Thuban higher stock clocks)!
No, it make no senses..
Said it before and will say it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
TDP.........
If you shrunk thuban to 32nm you could do 1 of 2 things, add 2 cores or increase clocks......not both, there's no room to grow.
Apparently according to AMD's roadmap however with bulldozer there is room to grow and stay within TDP limitations......
maybe u right, but still would be x8 PII at 32nm multithread beast with the same clocks as today
Maybe but you missed the other part i mentioned.........Where do you go from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
You have no room to grow so your back to square 1 and need a new architecture to build on.
^i like the new avatar
pseudo cores....
Maybe BD is a Pentium 4 AMD style.
Pentium 4 introduced 2 threads per core, was slower than PIII clock for clock, but excelled in certain tasks (video encoding)
I doubt that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
People really should get over the fact that BD will NOT be slower than Thuban.. Jesus what's wrong with yall...
Each module might be faster than each core in Thuban, but each mini core in BD might not match each full core in Thurban. AMD even themselves once refered to a BD module as 1.5 cores and not 2 cores.
not that i can recall. they have never compared thuban to BD, the only thing they have said is 180% scaling with CMT vs 195% scaling of old independent cores vs 115% scaling of SMTQuote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
I have just one beef with comparing 1 Thuban core vs 1 bulldozer "core", while 1 Thuban core could (ignoring design differences) technically be faster being a complete core, people forget that 1 thread on a BD core will be run with full 2MB L2 + 8MB L3 cache and full FP Scheduler, which together with faster clock speed should really help single threaded performance.
The design is just really smart, it has the potential do do very well especially once its drawbacks are ironed out in future revisions.
Depends on workload. For example, FFT - Lucas Lehmer Fast Furier Transformations get almost all FPU resources. 95% of instructions are SSE2 packed float and IPC is 1.9. FPU executes 1.8 FP instructions per cycle. There is two arithmetic pipes, FADD and FMUL in Phenom and Sandy Bridge cores. Because of algorithm, it effectively uses FADD and FMUL pipes. In such situation Bulldozer core has half of resources to execute. There is some exception if algorithm uses FMA pipe and integer SIMD ALU pipe. In that case BD module has double resources of 10h core.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
Linpack also uses alot of FP resources. It uses all three pipes in 10h with IPC of 2.6 there is 98% of FP instructions. But that is synthetic benchmark which use FADD, FMUL and FSTOR pipe. But for example BD FlexFP is 4-issue and ALU SIMD instructions like ANDNPD can execute on FPU pipe 2 and 3 independent of other ADD or MUL instruction. On 10h it can execute only on FADD or FMUL pipe. Theoretically, for synthetic benchmarks, per core, FlexFP has only half of resources from K10 FPU.
If instruction mix has some bitwise SIMD (ALU) and SIMD FP instructions it has same resources like K10.
Also if it uses FMA instructions module has double of FP resources of 10h, and same compared core to core.
In normal workloads, for eg. rendering tasks, it is a mix of FP and integer code. That could run much faster on 8-core BD than 6-core Thuban. Also in single thread or light threaded code BD could be much faster.
Conclusion is that the BD in multithread code will be much faster where Intel Core i7 with hyperthreading doing well. This is every example where execution resources are underutilised. For example, linpack runs slower with hyperthreading than without it. That is because of shared resources and shared L1D cache. Linpack with 4 threads on BD will not run faster than 8 threads, but with 8 threads will not run much faster than 4 threads.
But Cinebench which FPU utilisation is 25% ( 0.55 FP IPC and 0.65 IPC on Thuban CORE) can run much faster with 8 threads than 4 threads. Also, with hyperthreading, CB scales very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
I posted about this a long time ago, where JF talks about it in the AMD blog (would have to dig through my early posts on here, thankfully there aren't many). While JF only can speak on matters pertaining to Server products, I think it's fair to assume at least some of what he said will still hold true for the Desktop versions as well. From what I recall it was not only OS coding that would help (I guess drivers in this case), but application coding as well, which will better utilize how the cache works in BD (sharing). He seemed to indicate that Windows 8 (which he did not outright say 'Windows', or '8') would support it, which I went on to wonder how possibly it would be to get a patch out for 7 for it to full support BD as it's intended. I figured if it was able to be done w/o an arse load of work that it may require quite a hefty patch size, so I'm hoping the drivers mentioned are able to do most/all of what is needed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Let's all hope you're right! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
The only thing positive I see in there is the 4.7 to 5x multiprocessor speedup. Performance as a whole sucks ass, (something is wrong with these results, because Opterons would have not been handed to Cray for upgrades had the CPU's been underperforming) however it seems my hypothesis about single to multithread performance after what chew* hinted at was logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
4.7 to 5x multiprocessor speedup is simple to explain. In single thread test you have one core using one 256bit FPU. In MT you have 8 cores using 4 256bit FPUs. From one to 4 FPUs you have 4-5x speedup (more than four due to SMT mode in the FlexFP which adds 20% on top of 4x).
The problem is one 256bit double-sized FlexFP is slower than old Thuban core.At least in these benchmarks/conditions. That's what's illogical.
I don't quite follow, but I am likely not thinking about it right. First question, has CB been recompiled for AVX? Second question, if not, then CB will take advantage of 8 128 bit FPUs will it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I don't think cinebench has AVX optimizations to date. Therefore the benchmarks we have seen for BD thus far have not actually made use of the 256 floating point mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
On another note, I'll go out on a limb here and say; I do not think AMD has anything spectacular to offer as of yet in regards to BD. Obviously this is why It has not been released. And I do think at this point BD is nearly as flawed as P4. A core is NOT a core unless it can stand on its own in my book, with the exception of shared cache, witch is good since many cores have access to the same cached data.
Obviously it's all terrace215's fault. (lol, joking)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
We will see when the CPU's will launch, a CPU performing at that level is probably only worth about $120.
CrazyNutz -
Why would Cray buy a downgrade, even if it did have 4 more cores? I think all these samples are crippled in some way and that is the reason why John stated that nothing from anyone other than AMD with proper testing procedures will be correct until after launch time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
OK....I have just built a workstation with a i7 950 and recently 2 different server/workstations with Westmere XEONS one of them being my own in my sig and quite frankly all of them are just marginally better than what I was running prior to this build which was a 3 year + old Phenom II 940 system. So as I have been saying for years now most of this exaggerated stuff with Higher numbers/benchmarks are just theoretical and e-Penis stroking. Real World it really is not that much faster from apples to oranges and that's a fact!
:) :) :) He posted so much IPC actually did go down (j/k)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
OH, AND YAY FOR BULLDOZER!
Too bad I am broke now and moving to Charlotte soon DAMN you AMD!:shakes: GOD HOW I LOATH INTEL! Must admit though, my current build is quite nice and very stable but my heart and preference lies with the Green Team.......tsk..tsk.....dammit!:(
I did take that into consideration. However the upgrade path to 256bit FPU should be a very good upgrade since we know most organizations using a cray will most likely benefit from that for their scientific research.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Also we've only seen AMD handing over 1 box of CPU's to Cray, this may only be for a single cray customer, how many others did not chose this upgrade?