Printable View
Pretty sure theyre gonna use cores.From a marketing standpoint its better to have 8 than 4 :P.
Im not sold on this however, but that is a debate, what actually IS a core.Anyhow, it took good few years before laymans started to understand what cores are, i dont think AMD is going into explaining what a module is ,mess.
madcho, they will use cores only. Modules are just for presentation of a concept only ;) End user will know only cores.
memmem, but John(JF-AMD) said numerous times that BD module is two cores. Numerous. Even then some intel shills would come and say oh it is not real cores, etc and etc. But John would repeat over and over again, that BD has real cores.
Those 1 and a half cores in that video was just a figure of speech of some sorts, again for presentational purposes.
XRL8, I think a lot of people cannot get used to AMD changing CPU design so radically. Now CPU core has integer unit and FP unit. BD can have that conventional core if needed, but also it can be something a bit different :)
So close to launch and no performance numbers yet, hmmm......
Yes, Bulldozer will be a giant failure :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
you guys must have some psycho capabilities of guessing the future i'm not aware of :P
Are you that depressive?
i only read "fail fail fail" ... you almost start short circuiting ... :P It's a freaking cpu that no one knows about ... yeah sure... you must be frustrated with past launches ... but just hold your horses a little bit ...
Jeeeezz ... the hormonal levels must be hitting the limits :D
But that is AMD of todays. Look at the couple of recent GPU launches. They were very silent about those. GPUs came out fine.
... AMD CPU's as nothing to do with AMD GPU's ... two different teams, different marketing approaches ... and ... the 69xx series came late... they were supposed to "battle" with the 4xx series ... but Nvidia did such a good job on the 4xx series that they had to launch the 5xx series :-)
We can't compare ... even if they have the same company behind :)
How is it not the same? They all are under AMD. AMD decides to be tight lipped about their products, so that will include GPUs, CPUs, APUs. Being silent does not mean they have :banana::banana::banana::banana: products for us. and it does not mean it has something great for us. It is just some of you guys are not very patient and start spreading FUD.
fusion would disagree here, not to mention there will be shared resources, tech and personnel between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
I guess you don't know the meaning of the roll eyes emoticon that you took my post literally. I was just a little annoyed at HelixPc's post I'm tired of this "No performance numbers before release therefore said AMD product must suck" argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
AKM... yeah i saw it :) of course i was not referring to a single post ... in this case, yours :)
As for AMD now owning ATI ... of course there's technological sharing between the GPU R&D and CPU R&D.
What i mean is that we can't make a direct comparison between CPU & GPU marketing and business model.
Although they have the same "company vessel, AMD" they have different teams taking care of business development.
The general market guidelines is probably the same for both GPU and CPU business. If they should be tightlipped or not is a very big decision and might be made high up and might very well be something that applies to the whole business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
The 69xx were neither late or meant to battle GTX 4xx. It was designed to be AMD's next gen videocard on a 32nm process. But with TSMC canceling that and going straight to 28nm(which won't be up for a while still) AMD decided to take as much from that 32nm design as they could and cram it into a 40nm chip. The 69xx is AMD making the best out of a bad potion they were put into by something completely out of their control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
Corrrect, to be a little off topic, then why isn't GF making the GPUs. Its obvious there making 32nM parts, so why not GPUs also? This would give a minor leg up on NVDA, who is completely stuck with TSMC!!!!
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by SicKlown42012
i think so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
when it comes to public relations and marketing i guess both, cpu and gpu division, have to follow the same procedures. in the end, it's the same company and ati has been a part of amd for quite some time now.
i'm pretty sure they will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
but from what i've heard, transitioning from one foundry's process to another is difficult when you care about performance(leakage, etc.). :banana::banana::banana::banana: just takes time. there may or may not be contract issues involved as well.
It's all about capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
The bandwidth gained from the VLSI is where fusion will gain some if it's prominance. PCI-e is like 64 Gbit/s (16GB/s), & HT is like 330 Gbit/s (41GB/s), no? So, AMD has alot of advantages to work with when you consider the integration (cache sharing, faster main memory access for GPU, etc). Obviously, AMD gets alot of their performance & agility (Llano vid) with the tight intigration in the APU.
Secondly, nobody notices how fast a system is, just how slow it is. Fusion will eliminate that, thus setting a much higher minimum.
The choice evenutally comes down to: Is your software slowing you down (lag, hitching, pauses, etc), or is the output not enough? (Crunching numbers, deep mining numbers in shorter time, or magnitude more in same time, Pi, benchmark, etc)
Thus, determining what path to take.
I am sure Bulldozer will give a good glimpse at whats achievable @ smaller size, next year. Such, as a 1080p computer, that can handle BF3 in DX11 for $500 ? (& yes, if u stop and think about it, that is comming next year for xmas, no video card required!)
So, no matter how slow AMD's BDs are, it still won't matter. They won't be slow enough to notice.
btw, I don't believe in fanboism, onlic logic & reasoning.
thing i'm most excited about is I do believe in a few years.. (say next gen consoles) The process of adding GPU to processor will be much more refined.. and will make PC's able to compete with consoles on a price level.Quote:
Originally Posted by formula M
I really hope it does happen cos' for the average gamer its about price :)
you sure its not just about 'living space'? most people i know aren't comfortable with the idea of having their pc hooked up to their tv.
it is difficult, especially after adding so many custom circuits for power saving. those will have to be completely redone, along with some other things. it is not easy to do and takes a lot of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Generic user #2
also, when GF split from AMD they agreed that the gpu division's fab needs would transition to GF over time so they will be using global foundries.
both tsmc and gf have absurdly high wafer output for 28nm. i dont see that being a major issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Until the New York Fab 8 is up and running in 2012, GloFo is limited to the Dresden for 32nm and it will be pushed to the max making Llano and Bulldozer(which are much more important to the long term viability of AMD than any GPU). When Fab 8 is up and running 28nm, we'll see AMD at least considering switching to GloFo for GPUs, but even then it'll be a drawn out process. Making high-end GPUs is something GloFo has no experience with, so there will be growing pains that mean it'll take that much longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
I believe they (GF) will be manufacturing Pitcairn on 28nmQuote:
Originally Posted by RussC
If GF were actually being pushed to the limit by AMD CPUs alone they wouldn't have spun the company off in the first place....
AMD NEEDED the money, they didnt have a choice pretty much, besides they got a good deal out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird