Bulldozers first screens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

That is the wrong way to think about it. You have integer execution and FP execution.

90% of what happens in processing is integer. Especially in games.

Where, exactly, are you looking to use these 256-bit instructions? Software needs to take advantage of them and it needs to be rewritten. If they can't take advantage then they will not recompile.

Those applications that will be recompiled will probably take advantage of the FMA4 instructions as well, which will present an even more efficient way to handle complex math.

Suffice to say that if you need 256-bit, then you can bet your apps will be there, but without the need, you'll be in 128-bit mode. And in 128-bit mode, we have double the capability in Bulldozer.

---

Hi JF.

Like I said before, I´m just a curious costumer that likes computer technology.
I think AMD´s approach with Bulldozer is really nice.

Talking like the average Joe that I am, what I need is to be able to do a lot of stuff at the same time (listen to music, work on a document, browse the web,...). I don´t need to do one thing super fast (i mean, half a second is irrelevant).

I know you are a server marketing guy, but just to say... If all goes well, I´m buying Llano.


offtopic an redundant:

What we have to understand is that, at least where I live, at the client side the majority of costumers (95%) don´t buy nanometers, power consumption or noise. It all comes down to price and brand.

At the same price and even if a little more expensive, people will go Intel.

You have a good product... Advertise it!


* Sorry for the bad english. Hope you can undurstand me.

Again, it's not a logical vs physical debate. If your workload is pure integer, you can execute 8 threads on 8 real integer cores at the same time. If your workload is pure 128-bit floating point, you can again execute 8 threads at the same time. The FPU is a little more akin to HT in this instance in that there's one unit that is doing multiple threads, but ultimately it's more like two real cores. It splits in half and executes each thread independently. If your workload is pure 256-bit floating point, you can only execute 4 threads at the same time. This is not like HT at all. To make it even more interesting, a given cycle could have the CPU look like five, six, or seven "cores" depending on the mix of instructions. Using the "core" nomenclature for something that isn't built using that traditional model isn't very precise, but if you want to call it anything you should go by the integer cores since the vast majority of arithmetic in computer programs is integer. Eight real "cores".

You can't run 256-bit FP on a 980X, right?

So those aren't real cores, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

You can't run 256-bit FP on a 980X, right?

So those aren't real cores, right?

---

It was just a question for my personal knowledge (like I said before, I´m just a curious consumer).

And I believe Zambezi is an 8 core CPU.

But then you (AMD guys) should not let people call a module "a core and a half" just in front of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY (2:05)

Believe me. I like AMD.

So for clarification a core refers to a set of two integer units and one floating point unit? So then an octocore bulldozer would have 16 integer units?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Indeed, eveyone shouting 4 module BD is not 8 cores just says the exact opposite of what that head markteing guy of the server section is saying. :ROTF:

---

I personally don't care if it's 8 physical cores or 4 physical cores/8 modules. As long as it's as fast (preferably faster) than Intel's current offerings, it's all gravy on my fries. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darakian

So for clarification a core refers to a set of two integer units and one floating point unit? So then an octocore bulldozer would have 16 integer units?

---

m, no. A Module contains two integer cores with one fat FP unit, which can be split into two 128bit FPUs ;)
So 8 core BD will have 8 integer units plus 4 fat(256bit) FPUs or 8 128bit ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memmem

But then you (AMD guys) should not let people call a module "a core and a half" just in front of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbG2AmdMNY (2:05)

Believe me. I like AMD.

---

I would suggest to have a look at that nice picture of BD module in that video ;)

take that 'core and a half' expression and analyse it with the help of that picture or what we know about the BD module.

yes they are saying that it is core(integer) and a half(shared FPU). But that half(shared FPU) can be split into two FULL(compared to current Phenom design) FPUs(cores). If needed BD module can be one core and really-really-powerful-half(256bit FPU) or that module can be two regular cores like we are used to have in todays design(integer+128bit FPU). That FPU can be split into two units, thus Flex FPU. So you get the best of both worlds.
You guys need to stop looking at BD arch in comparison to current design, as you will never come to the apples to apples comparison :)
You can say that if FPU is split then and we have two conventional cores per module and nothing has changed compared to current(phenom design), then again it would be not true as AMD spent like half a decade designing and building BD, thus most of the stuff is beefed up and upgraded and quite a few of the arch bottlenecks removed and thought out.

Edit: OT, damn, what happened to new comment notifications :/ It is like reading a new thread, even though I had it subscribed long time ago :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muziqaz

m, no. A Module contains two integer cores with one fat FP unit, which can be split into two 128bit FPUs ;)
So 8 core BD will have 8 integer units plus 4 fat(256bit) FPUs or 8 128bit ones.

---

Ok, thanks.

Leaked performance, pleaseeeeeeeeee .............

IMO, people who are concerned with speed per core, or how many.. don't understand API's, or their own OS. That whatever they want to do with their system (game, watch movie, etc) has no bearing whether it's single-threaded, as many things are vying for resources.

It almost always never matters how fast ur system is, only how slow it is not.


Coincidentally, if you are concerned^, then shop tdp as any modern cpu will OC itself for max thruput when needed. And again, if u generally don't use a computer, but specifically do, then ur specific needs don't apply to the populace, therefore have little bearing as "end-user" needs. As those needs would be more scientific, or business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by formula M

IMO, people who are concerned with speed per core, or how many.. don't understand API's, or their own OS. That whatever they want to do with their system (game, watch movie, etc) has no bearing whether it's single-threaded & many things are vying for resources.

It almost always never matter how fast ur system us, only how slow it is not.


Coincidentally, if you are concerned^, then shop tdp as any modern cpu will OC itself for max thruput when needed. And again, if u generally don't use a computer, but specifically do, then ur specific needs don't apply to the populace, therefore have little bearing as "end-user" needs. As those needs would be more scientific, or business.

---

This is xtremesystems not the apple store forums.I cant wait to run a 22nn sandy at 6ghz :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

This is xtremesystems not the apple store forums.I cant wait to run a 22nn sandy at 6ghz :up:

---

Yep.. and?

We are not in some sub-forum. It seems you have some specific need, no? So why respond, did I not already address ur situation? Or does my join date entitle u to Apple'ize me. (Ur bridge has some holes)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by formula M

Yep.. and?

We are not in some sub-forum. It seems you have some specific need, no? So why respond, did I not already address ur situation? Or does my join date entitle u to Apple'ize me. (Ur bridge has some holes)

---

What does sub forums have anything to do with this.We have been waiting for bd for the last 4-5 years.

So what if this is called xtremesystems, do you have to have an Intel and an OC of more than 4ghz to access the forums? Freakin' elitist attitude that's no different than the apple fanatics. It's what you do with your hardware, rather than what your hardware is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

What does sub forums have anything to do with this.We have been waiting for bd for the last 4-5 years.

---

Contex.

We are not in the OC sub forums. It seems u heavily hang ur coat on a specific need. So much so, that ur lost when discussing the viability of said archetecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by insurgent

So what if this is called xtremesystems, do you have to have an Intel and an OC of more than 4ghz to access the forums? Freakin' elitist attitude that's no different than the apple fanatics. It's what you do with your hardware, rather than what your hardware is.

---

Right because no one overclocks on this forum.also when did overclocking ever get brought up? If you read what I first quoted you can see why xtremesystems was brought up.

Typical response from an amd user though.the difference is that I will buy a bf if it performs better than my setup now.

Are we not allowed to compare sandy to bd? I would be saying the same thing even if I had a amd rig.its funny that we can't bring up intels performance.

Last I looked we are not in the amd section.its fair game to compare bd to sandy bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

This is xtremesystems not the apple store forums.I cant wait to run a 22nn sandy at 6ghz :up:

---

just make a few SBE or Interlagos systems when it is out and link it together become a cluster..
It would beat 22nm IB or SB or whatever systems in many ways..
this is XS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

This is xtremesystems not the apple store forums.I cant wait to run a 22nn sandy at 6ghz :up:

---

I'm pretty sure the name of the forum isn't called IntelSystems...just sayin'.

The 22nn 6ghz was brought up from the post I quoted saying that we don't know our os and or what multi cores do or how they perform.

The overclock was mentioned for sake of knowing what a bd core is about and wanting to push intels next shrink to the limits.I should of put I can't wait to overclock amds 22 nm core to 6ghz this is not an apple forum.

Where did I complain against comparison against Intel? Then again your post suggests we're not "xtreme" if we're not using Intel. I bought my X6 for 175USD at launch so yeah, a typical AMD user is what again? I'm reacting to your elitist attitude regarding to what "extreme" really is. I can build a celeron at stock for whatever use and have an insane case mod, and that would still be extreme.

And like most sane person, I will wait for performance reviews before choosing anything, but I won't sneer at people who choose differently.

edit:
except if they choose a mac just because it's pretty, I'd make fun of that

My god some of this is hard to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

Right because no one overclocks on this forum.also when did overclocking ever get brought up? If you read what I first quoted you can see why xtremesystems was brought up.

Typical response from an amd user though.the difference is that I will buy a bf if it performs better than my setup now.

Are we not allowed to compare sandy to bd? I would be saying the same thing even if I had a amd rig.its funny that we can't bring up intels performance.

Last I looked we are not in the amd section.its fair game to compare bd to sandy bridge.

---

He's gonna buy a boyfriend :shocked: :rofl: :ROTF:

Lets keep comparisons out of it until we have comparable benchmarks. We don't need a flame war starting here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muziqaz

I would suggest to have a look at that nice picture of BD module in that video ;)

take that 'core and a half' expression and analyse it with the help of that picture or what we know about the BD module.

yes they are saying that it is core(integer) and a half(shared FPU). But that half(shared FPU) can be split into two FULL(compared to current Phenom design) FPUs(cores). If needed BD module can be one core and really-really-powerful-half(256bit FPU) or that module can be two regular cores like we are used to have in todays design(integer+128bit FPU). That FPU can be split into two units, thus Flex FPU. So you get the best of both worlds.
You guys need to stop looking at BD arch in comparison to current design, as you will never come to the apples to apples comparison :)
You can say that if FPU is split then and we have two conventional cores per module and nothing has changed compared to current(phenom design), then again it would be not true as AMD spent like half a decade designing and building BD, thus most of the stuff is beefed up and upgraded and quite a few of the arch bottlenecks removed and thought out.

Edit: OT, damn, what happened to new comment notifications :/ It is like reading a new thread, even though I had it subscribed long time ago :D

---

Hi muziqaz,

In a limited way, I understand Bulldozer´s concept. My doubts were in execution.

I already saw those pictures of Bulldozer (a lot of times). That was not the question. My concern was with people that does not come to forums and listen to a marketing video, where some guy call a module "a core and a half". I think, at that moment, the AMD representant should clarify and say.. "No, a module is two real cores......"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memmem

Hi muziqaz,

In a limited way, I understand Bulldozer´s concept. My doubts were in execution.

I already saw those pictures of Bulldozer (a lot of times). That was not the question. My concern was with people that does not come to forums and listen to a marketing video, where some guy call a module "a core and a half". I think, at that moment, the AMD representant should clarify and say.. "No, a module is two real cores......"

---

it's a good question, AMD is gonna use core for marketing, or modules ?

i think this is a good question :up: