AMD cuts to the core with 'Bulldozer' Opterons

Also he keeps quoting those AT game benchmarks while back in real world gaming the results are pretty much even across the number of chips.LC already showed the artifact in benchmarking(the "highest fps") which other websites don't bother addressing. What matters is minimum and average(minimum more than average) since these define the "gameplay fluidity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS @ LC

The only obvious differences are in the max frame rates, we have the explanation below:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/inte...ld/farcry2.gif
The highest frame rates only show at the very beginning of the benchmark and are an artifact of the measuring routine, whereas everything else is essentially constant between the three CPUs tested here.

---

And Boris,the 12% number you so often quote is meaningless and has nothing to do with "single core IPC improvement" as you want to believe...
And no you have it backwards,if it(BD) scales "bad" with many cores then the single thread perf. will be higher... The problem with the 'bad scaling" is 1) it won't scale bad 2) you can't extrapolate any figure from 50% AMD gave us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Oh so now X6 can't compare(you mean compete?) with i7s?Right. :rolleyes:
Lost Circuits is not a joke,it's probably the best HW website out there.The guy who runs it is the VP of OCZ tech. And 3D rendering is one major part of performance when it comes to modern day desktop chips,just like A/V encoding.Gaming comes last since you can game just as well with lower end QC like Q6600 or Phenom 9850/810.

---

It is the best because it is the only on which has weird scores where Phenom CPUs are matching or exceeding i7s
I trust the plethora of other reviews, both by websites and independent benchers where i7s leave the Phenoms in the dust.

The best review site is IMO, Techreport by far. And Techreport numbers are inline with all other major sites except LostCircuits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

comparing a server chip built for super perfect thread scaling, with gaming where a duel core still offers the best fps/dollar, is fail i think

also if the 50% faster with 33% is with same clockspeeds, please someone say it, cause so far i dont think it has been mentioned, and will greatly affect the IPC calculations people like so much

---

Hope you don't mean me. Because I'm not doing IPC calculations, the reason I compared IPC between i5 and Phenom II is that they have the almost same possible frequency spectra. Even if i5 might have a bit higher potential.
Therefore, IPC is a good measurement in comparing differences in architectures like Phenom II and iX without HT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

comparing a server chip built for super perfect thread scaling, with gaming where a duel core still offers the best fps/dollar, is fail i think

also if the 50% faster with 33% is with same clockspeeds, please someone say it, cause so far i dont think it has been mentioned, and will greatly affect the IPC calculations people like so much

---

-50% is the integer performance for 8 modules vs 12 cores.
-Fp performance a lot better than 50%, check the old chart.
-JF said that is a conversvativ number. So It's >+50%.

So single thread on BD is gonna take an impressiv boost, more than you think.

In 3D games, in low res, intel is fast, but in high res with filters, the difference with a 980 and 1090T is very low.

Who play without filters today ? Nominal is 1920*1200*AA4x*AF16x in mainstream. Most of the time if 8x is not too slow you activate it too.

And the money value in far better in AMD products.

Why pay for 4 motherboards with same chipset or almost ?

P965, do you remember ?

A guy that have a thuban now, don't change RAM, don't change motherboard, just a bios update.

An AM3 good motherboard is arround 150€. An intel good motherboard is 199-250€.

Intel win 15-20% in low res ? and what ? I would not pay for that ( again ).:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Also he keeps quoting those AT game benchmarks while back in real world gaming the results are pretty much even across the number of chips.LC already showed the artifact in benchmarking(the "highest fps") which other websites don't bother addressing. What matters is minimum and average(minimum more than average) since these define the "gameplay fluidity".

---

Letting the GPU bottleneck the processor is a very bad way of measuring how long the processor will be capable of the latest games. You have to let the processor bottleneck if you shall know the true capacity of the processor which is essential in estimating longevity.

In low resolutions in 2007, a A64 X2 3800+ and a C2D Q6600+ could performe the same. Which one would be able to run the latest games today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

And no you have it backwards,if it(BD) scales "bad" with many cores then the single thread perf. will be higher... The problem with the 'bad scaling" is 1) it won't scale bad 2) you can't extrapolate any figure from 50% AMD gave us.

---

That's exactly what I said! If Bulldozer scales terrific, then it can achieve 50% over Bulldozer in multithreaded scenarios and still be slower per core.

Let me make up some numbers to show:

BD performance per core = 1 bogomark.
With optimal scaling a full 16 core Bulldozer will achieve 16 bogomarks.

MC perforamnce per core = 1.1 bogomarks. But it scales less.
With only 80% effiency and 12 cores it will achieve 10.56 bogomarks.

In this example with numbers I just pulled out of my arse. I clearly show why bulldozers rumored scaling advantage, really is a singlethread disadvantage if 50% is all it can achieve.

That's why I am hoping it scales lousy, that would mean much higher single thread performance. ;)

@Savantu
The only outlier I can see is the mainconcept test for which there must be some explanation(maybe due to compiler/switches used in the creation of the program).

And Boris,nobody games at low resolution(with no filters applied).So no,testing at low resolution is not representative of real world gaming and I explicitly said real world gaming.
As for BD and performance per core,like I said the 50% number can't be used to extrapolate single core perf. increase,period.

there is just so little known about whats involved with that 50%, the socket as a whole is faster, but what is still the limiting factor, could it be the new arcitecture is just not that powerful, or could it be that the TDP was reached too quickly since the 32nm process is still so new and leaky.

if we find out that 50% is done at 1ghz, what would people say then? and what if we find out desktop is going to be 2ghz, would we hate on it? or would we say it has a 500mhz advantage over intel?

i do like trying to figure out stuff, but theres a difference between doing "what if" calculations and putting specs into JFs mouth that he never said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Letting the GPU bottleneck the processor is a very bad way of measuring how long the processor will be capable of the latest games. You have to let the processor bottleneck if you shall know the true capacity of the processor which is essential in estimating longevity.

In low resolutions in 2007, a A64 X2 3800+ and a C2D Q6600+ could performe the same. Which one would be able to run the latest games today?



That's exactly what I said! If Bulldozer scales terrific, then it can achieve 50% over Bulldozer in multithreaded scenarios and still be slower per core.

Let me make up some numbers to show:

BD performance per core = 1 bogomark.
With optimal scaling a full 16 core Bulldozer will achieve 16 bogomarks.

MC perforamnce per core = 1.1 bogomarks. But it scales less.
With only 80% effiency and 12 cores it will achieve 10.56 bogomarks.

In this example with numbers I just pulled out of my arse. I clearly show why bulldozers rumored scaling advantage, really is a singlethread disadvantage if 50% is all it can achieve.

That's why I am hoping it scales lousy, that would mean much higher single thread performance. ;)

---

In server market gaining 25% of efficency in scaling would be terrific.

i expect a cruching power from BD, It's 33% wider per core in integer. Would be awesome, if it's slower IPC.

And FMAC 256 ... it's just omg.

Even with a bad frequency, ( on high end desktop ) it should be in pair with a dual x4.

The biggest change of architecture from AMD was K6-III to Athlon. Athlon to Athlon XP was small, Athlon 64 was nice improvement, for low number of transistor change. So was in internal small.

Phenom was expected to change more dramaticaly, but in fact was not so big internaly too.

Only reading spec for the BD is just an awesome of work. Execution unit is completely new, first time from Athlon.

Shared L2 for a module is a very nice idea i think taked from core 2. And CMT is like the first step before reverse HT. So we are no so far from it.

I just can wait for the 24 to know more deeply inside this awesome chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

And Boris,nobody games at low resolution(with no filters applied).So no,testing at low resolution is not representative of real world gaming and I explicitly said real world gaming.

---

Real world performance is all that matters, I agree. But the real world in a few years is that all processors from today won't cut it.
Again. A X2 3800+ could perform exactly like a Q6600 in 2007. But in modern games with modern graphicscards, only one of them still works satisfactory. Well already in 2008 one of them would fail hard when GTA IV was released.
That's why you measure how good a processor is at games in a CPU bench, and don't let the GPU bottleneck. You can't say two processors will be equal in games for 3-4 years, based on a bottlenecked bench today.

I promise you, a 980X will be able to run the latest games for many years, you can't say that about all the processors in your graph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

As for BD and performance per core,like I said the 50% number can't be used to extrapolate single core perf. increase,period.

---

Well I agree, we don't know :banana::banana::banana::banana:. But we have to make up our minds here. IF these numbers with 50% and 33% are correct.
Bulldozer will either scale well, and have a disappointing singlecore performance, or it will scale bad, and have good singlecore performance.
You can't have both.

I hope you agree about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Let me make up some numbers to show:

BD performance per core = 1 bogomark.
With optimal scaling a full 16 core Bulldozer will achieve 16 bogomarks.

MC perforamnce per core = 1.1 bogomarks. But it scales less.
With only 80% effiency and 12 cores it will achieve 10.56 bogomarks.

In this example with numbers I just pulled out of my arse. I clearly show why bulldozers rumored scaling advantage, really is a singlethread disadvantage if 50% is all it can achieve.

That's why I am hoping it scales lousy, that would mean much higher single thread performance. ;)

---

Boris, I already gave an example of scaling of Phenom II in other thread:
Thuban in Cinebench R10, multicore result 14156, single core result is 3089. so 6 cores give 4.58 speedup. not 6x, and scaling is 4.58/6 = 76%

12 cores would be worse, and take in account that scaling is non-linear with cores increase. Generally, the more cores the worse scaling.
This is for just cinebench, in other applications numbers will be different. But I would not Expecting 100% scaling as JF AMD told us that 50% performance number is applicable to major set of server loads, not some picked application with 100% (if such possible at all with 12 to 16 threads)


And I repeat 2nd thing - there is no word about frequencies for that 50% performance increase. So your number 12.5% IPC is double-wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Bulldozer will either scale well, and have a disappointing singlecore performance, or it will scale bad, and have good singlecore performance.
You can't have both.

---

We already have a number for BD scaling: 80%. Sooooo????

weve had quads for 3+ years now and how many games use more than 2 cores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

Boris, I already gave an example of scaling of Phenom II in other thread:
Thuban in Cinebench R10, multicore result 14156, single core result is 3089. so 6 cores give 4.58 speedup. not 6x, and scaling is 4.58/6 = 76%

---

thats due to turbo

i set my turbo to be 14x on my 1055T and my speedup was 5.8x i was very impressed. i can do it again tonight and give you a SS, until then its just my word (or some googling)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

thats due to turbo

i set my turbo to be 14x on my 1055T and my speedup was 5.8x i was very impressed. i can do it again tonight and give you a SS, until then its just my word (or some googling)

---

No need. Google is OK:
Numbers for AMD Phenom II 940 (no turbo at all): 4 cores - 12790, single core - 3463. Which results to 3.69 multicore speedup. That is 92%. And continuing adding cores will lower this percent significantly at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Real world performance is all that matters, I agree. But the real world in a few years is that all processors from today won't cut it.
Again. A X2 3800+ could perform exactly like a Q6600 in 2007. But in modern games with modern graphicscards, only one of them still works satisfactory. Well already in 2008 one of them would fail hard when GTA IV was released.
That's why you measure how good a processor is at games in a CPU bench, and don't let the GPU bottleneck. You can't say two processors will be equal in games for 3-4 years, based on a bottlenecked bench today.

I promise you, a 980X will be able to run the latest games for many years, you can't say that about all the processors in your graph.




Well I agree, we don't know :banana::banana::banana::banana:. But we have to make up our minds here. IF these numbers with 50% and 33% are correct.
Bulldozer will either scale well, and have a disappointing singlecore performance, or it will scale bad, and have good singlecore performance.
You can't have both.

I hope you agree about this?

---

The same old "present day CPUs in modern games few years ahead" story was told for a number of years now and what happened?Nothing much since modern day games are mainly shader bound(meaning GPU bound) and the only thing apart the cache amount that matters today and didn't matter few years back is the core count since the additional core(s) are/can be used by PhysX(or Havok). Also you compare X2 @ 2Ghz Vs C2Q @ 2.4Ghz and there is no surprise a dual core won't cut it Vs the quad core whose natural opponent actually is Agena/Phenom I which almost ties 65nm C2Q. So to sum it up,modern day and future games will be GPU bound and you will need many core CPU with solid amount of cache in order to have a good experience(many cores for AI/PhysX offloading).Naturally a strong GPU is a must .

As for BD,again,the number is an average from many server workloads,not one application or two.You can bet that many of those just won't scale perfectly with more cores(nothing to do with HW abilities of BD) and this just makes the number not appropriate for extrapolating single core performance.Oh and unknown clock rate for BD doesn't help either,like SEA and many others wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

Boris, I already gave an example of scaling of Phenom II in other thread:
Thuban in Cinebench R10, multicore result 14156, single core result is 3089. so 6 cores give 4.58 speedup. not 6x, and scaling is 4.58/6 = 76%

12 cores would be worse, and take in account that scaling is non-linear with cores increase. Generally, the more cores the worse scaling.
This is for just cinebench, in other applications numbers will be different. But I would not Expecting 100% scaling as JF AMD told us that 50% performance number is applicable to major set of server loads, not some picked applocation with 100% (if such possible at all with 12 to 16 threads)

---

Read my latest post, if bulldozer scales better and still only delivers 50% with 33% more cores. That means that it will have less performance increase in single threaded applications than 12.5% per core. In order to perform better, combined with better scaling, it would be more than 50% increase in multithreaded applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

And I repeat 2nd thing - there is no word about frequencies for that 50% performance increase. So your number 12.5% IPC is double-wrong

---

If I mentioned 12.5% higher IPC it must be a mistake, I don't talk about IPC for bulldozer at all. 12.5% is a maximum increase in performance per core if Bulldozer scales better than MC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

We already have a munber for BD scaling: 80%. Sooooo????

---

That number is for the second core inside module, it can't represent the scaling going from one module to four or eight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Read my latest post, if bulldozer scales better and still only delivers 50% with 33% more cores. That means that it will have less performance increase in single threaded applications than 12.5% per core. In order to perform better, combined with better scaling, it would be more than 50% increase in multithreaded applications.

---

OK, now i see your point. But I don't get why would you bring 50% to core performance, if you don't know scaling factor, frequencies factor???
In this particular case, the server chip, performance per core lowered to have more cores while staing in same ACP (power package).
And that gives us the clue what 50% really means:
Having same ACP as MC the BD will bring these extra 50%.
In this light your 12.5 is absolutely meaningless. sorry.

Quote:

---

That number is for the second core inside module, it can't represent the scaling going from one module to four or eight.

---

So how would one expect scaling more than 90% if half of all cores are 80%??? sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

So i'm hoping for the opposite to prove me wrong, that Bulldozer scales bad due to modules instead of cores,.....

---

We are supposed to have that as a yes, already.

IIRC Mr. Fruehe has stated somewhere that a module with two ALU-clusters that
AMD likes to call cores, scales to the given number 1.8 when fully loaded.
Where a "true" dualcore solution scales to the number of 2.0.

I've read this as if only one ALU/core is under full load, it's 100%. when two cores is fully loaded each core would be able reach 90% of its peak capacity
This due to the parts of the module that's shared.

Edit: Oh my! This thread runs fast:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

The same old "present day CPUs in modern games few years ahead" story was told for a number of years now and what happened?Nothing much since modern day games are mainly shader bound(meaning GPU bound) and the only thing apart the cache amount that matters today and didn't matter few years back is the core count since the additional core(s) are/can be used by PhysX(or Havok). Also you compare X2 @ 2Ghz Vs C2Q @ 2.4Ghz and there is no surprise a dual core won't cut it Vs the quad core whose natural opponent actually is Agena/Phenom I which almost ties 65nm C2Q. So to sum it up,modern day and future games will be GPU bound and you will need many core CPU with solid amount of cache in order to have a good experience(many cores for AI/PhysX offloading).Naturally a strong GPU is a must .

---

CPUs are still important. And you totally missed my point, two processors can have equal performance when bottlenecked. But perform totally different when not. It doesn't matter if it's due to quad vs. dual, if it's frequencies or if it's IPC. Just because a GPU-limited bench says two processors are equal doesn't mean they really are. You think it's unfair that one processor in the example is a dualcore? But bench showed they were equals right?
And a couple of years back, people said that CPUs weren't a limiting factor anymore. At that time X2 4800+ was king of the hill.
The same goes for today, that a CPU isn't a limiting factor today, lets say Athlon II X4 2.9GHz. Doesn't mean that it will just as good as a 980x 2014.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

As for BD,again,the number is an average from many server workloads,not one application or two.You can bet that many of those just won't scale perfectly with more cores(nothing to do with HW abilities of BD) and this just makes the number not appropriate for extrapolating single core performance.Oh and unknown clock rate for BD doesn't help either,like SEA and many others wrote.

---

As for that number, I trust that Fruehe didn't gave us numbers that was negative to BD. I trust these applications scale pretty well. And Besides, it doesn't matter. I'm talking to scaling vs. performance per core. Even if it is applications that don't scale to well, they don't scale to well on MC either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

OK, now i see your point. But I don't get why would you bring 50% to core performance, if you don't know scaling factor, frequencies factor???
In this particular case, the server chip, performance per core lowered to have more cores while staing in same ACP (power package).
And that gives us the clue what 50% really means:
Having same ACP as MC the BD will bring these extra 50%.
In this light your 12.5 is absolutely meaningless. sorry.

---

Since they are working within the same thermal envelope I don't see why it would be meaningless.

If bulldozer performs =12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores just as good as MC scales from 1 to 12 cores..

If bulldozer performs <12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores better than MC scales from 1 to 12 cores.

If bulldozer performs >12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores worse than MC scales from 1 to 12 cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

So how would one expect scaling more that 90% if half of all cores are 80%??? sorry.

---

1.8 times performance is 90% scaling. 90% of 2 is 1.8. ;)

And we don't know about scaling between modules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kej

We are supposed to have that as a yes, already.

IIRC Mr. Fruehe has stated somewhere that a module with two ALU-clusters that
AMD likes to call cores, scales to the given number 1.8 when fully loaded.
Where a "true" dualcore solution scales to the number of 2.0.

I've read this as if only one ALU/core is under full load, it's 100%. when two cores is fully loaded each core would be able reach 90% of its peak capacity
This due to the parts of the module that's shared.

Edit: Oh my! This thread runs fast:p:

---

The fact that the scaling within modules isn't the same as the scaling between modules complicates the situation a bit. ;)



Is it just I who think this discussion is going somewhere? ;)
I think that we are a bit closer to conclude that due to modules, bulldozer scale a bit worse per core than MC. And that Bulldozer might have quite high single threaded performance. I think that a module, with all it's shared parts, is better on single threads than a dualcore, but as AMDs states, scales a bit worse. It all comes down to how well BD scales between modules.

Boris,using Athlon II for future comparison isn't the best choice due to lack of L3.IMO any other 45nm core(Penryn,Deneb,Thuban,Lynnfield) with solid amount of cache will do great for future games.Bulldozer is supposed to bring another level of shared cache(L2,shared by core pairs) and with more cache and more much improved cores(8 for desktop) I bet it will do great in games.
BD scaling(the often quoted 80% figure) just means that instead of 8x perfect scaling you can look at the 4x1.8=7.2x for applications that can scale to 8 threads perfectly(like Linpack).This is around 11% penalty,in other words pretty good scaling if application is able to use the cores efficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

This is around 11% penalty,in other words pretty good scaling if application is able to use the cores efficiently.

---

~11% penalty is not what we'd get even with ''independent'' cores?
sound fishy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Boris,using Athlon II for future comparison isn't the best choice due to lack of L3.IMO any other 45nm core(Penryn,Deneb,Thuban,Lynnfield) with solid amount of cache will do great for future games.Bulldozer is supposed to bring another level of shared cache(L2,shared by core pairs) and with more cache and more much improved cores(8 for desktop) I bet it will do great in games.

---

But they perform the same when bottlenecked? :confused:;)
So L3 matters, but performance don't? A phenom II 910 and a Core i7 980X will perform the same in games 2014? I have a feeling that the benchmarks made today which aren't bottlenecked will give a good clue on the 980X scenario. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

BD scaling(the often quoted 80% figure) just means that instead of 8x perfect scaling you can look at the 4x1.8=7.2x for applications that can scale to 8 threads perfectly(like Linpack).This is around 11% penalty,in other words pretty good scaling if application is able to use the cores efficiently.

---

This is all wrong, there are no numbers of scaling on multiple modules. The only number we have is within a module, between one and two cores.
And 1.8x is 90% performance per core.

How can you get 80% scaling to 11% penalty? The numbers are 90% and 10%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

~11% penalty is not what we'd get even with ''independent'' cores?

---

That's the penalty due to shared front end.You have around 10% penalty for much much less die space investment(no need to have another front end stage,int cores can use full potential of 2 fmac units,shared L2 per module etc.)
Also this means that each core inside module does perform a bit better on its own(not counting new Turbo BD will have).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But they perform the same when bottlenecked? :confused:;)
So L3 matters, but performance don't? A phenom II 910 and a Core i7 980X will perform the same in games 2014? I have a feeling that the benchmarks made today which aren't bottlenecked will give a good clue on the 980X scenario. ;)




This is all wrong, there are no numbers of scaling on multiple modules. The only number we have is within a module, between one and two cores.
And 1.8x is 90% performance per core.

How can you get 80% scaling to 11% penalty? The numbers are 90% and 10%.

---

Phenom II 910 is QC ,the other is 6 core Westmere.Yes L3 matters and you can see this with Agena Vs Deneb.By 2014 games will use more than 4 cores so yes it (Westmere) will be better performer but not because the things you believe.

I can't see what you don't understand? You have a scaling within a module.Anything outside of module should behave the same as Lisbon does today(scaling to 6 cores which communicate over shared L3).Each module is a "super core" if you will and each of those will scale the same-hence 4x1.8(or 8 x 0.9 since you like 90% number more :p:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Back again to same old stuff : ICC 8.0 did a check for vendor ID, newer versions ( currently ICC 10 ) have the check removed and will check for feature flags ( basically whatever the CPU supports the compiler will throw at it ). However, Intel claim no responsibility for code quality and bugs.
They say the check in 8.0 was introduced simply because AMD did not give them the detailled errata list for their CPUs ( obviously that AMD refrains from sending samples to Intel for validation ).
It would be like AMD sampling now BD to Intel so future updates to Intel's compiler can support BD features. :rolleyes:

---

You should read Agner Fog's latest blogs then ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agner Fog

Intel have released a new version of their Math Kernel Library (v. 10.3) in beta test.

I have tested the new libraries and found that the CPU dispatching works basically the same way as before. The standard math library, vector math library, short vector math library and the 64-bit version of other math kernel library functions still use an inferior code path for non-Intel processors.

I have found the following differences from previous versions:

* Many functions now have a branch for the forthcoming AVX instruction set, but still only for Intel processors. This will increase the difference in performance between Intel and AMD processors on these functions. Both Intel and AMD are planning to support AVX in 2011.

* The CPU dispatcher for the vector math library has a new branch for non-Intel processors with SSE2. Unlike the generic branch, the new non-Intel SSE2 branch is used only on non-Intel processors, and it is inferior in many cases to the branch used by Intel processors with the same instruction set. The non-Intel SSE2 branch is implemented in the 32-bit Windows version and the 32-bit Linux version, but not in the 64-bit versions of the library.

* A new Summary Statistics library uses the same CPU dispatcher as the vector math library.

Obviously, I haven't tested all functions in the library. There may be more differences that I haven't discovered. But it is clear that many functions in the new version of the library still cripples performance on non-Intel processors. I don't understand how they can do this without violating the legal settlement with AMD.
Reply To This Message

---

I believe that the scaling of multicore CPU is not architecture dependent(well, cache hierarchy and internal bandwidth has some influence). It is dependent on software implementation and platform(Mainly latency caused by memory operations).

Some algorithms can't scale well across many cores by their nature. Some algorithms are I/O bound(RAM). Some algorithms can scale linearly in theory, but in practice the rest of the platform causes bottlenecks, not really the CPU by it's design.

And forget about hyper threading, it can only aid with non-optimal(superscalar dependency stalls, cache misses, branch mispredicts) code by making the CPU do stuff while the execution units idle for some reason(bad code), improving efficiency.

In which cases does the single thread performance matter? Show me an example of a real world program which doesn't scale to multiple threads and is time critical. Apart from games, are there any? For me anything which I could think of using a multicore CPU for is already scaling across multiple cores, and in those cases there's usually a bigger bottleneck from IO delays than CPU throughput.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Phenom II 910 is QC ,the other is 6 core Westmere.Yes L3 matters and you can see this with Agena Vs Deneb.By 2014 games will use more than 4 cores so yes it (Westmere) will be better performer but not because the things you believe.

---

Stop this nonsense. You claim total performance doesn't matter in real world, with this as proof?!
But after that you claim that L3 has an invisible impact, and core count?
Let me get this straight. If I have my Phenom II running a bunch of games today clocked at 2GHz and 4.8GHz in two runs. Limited by my GPU I get the exact same FPS in both cases. Will both perform equally in the games realesed in 2014? Same core count, same cache, same everything except frequency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I can't see what you don't understand? You have a scaling within a module.Anything outside of module should behave the same as Lisbon does today(scaling to 6 cores which communicate over shared L3).Each module is a "super core" if you will and each of those will scale the same-hence 4x1.8(or 8 x 0.9 since you like 90% number more :p:)

---

I'm not to sure, we don't know how fast the L3 is. It could be enhanced much. I often see i7 with 3 times the bandwidth. Faster L3 could improve scaling.

i predict that games in 2014 will still not be cpu limited, cause as things that use the cpu get more intense, they try to move it to the gpu, like physics did

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Stop this nonsense. You claim total performance doesn't matter in real world, with this as proof?!
But after that you claim that L3 has an invisible impact, and core count?
Let me get this straight. If I have my Phenom II running a bunch of games today clocked at 2GHz and 4.8GHz in two runs. Limited by my GPU I get the exact same FPS in both cases. Will both perform equally in the games realesed in 2014? Same core count, same cache, same everything except frequency.

---

What kind of a game would run the same @ 2Ghz and 4.8Ghz Deneb chip?? There is no such a game and if there was it would be extremely GPU bound(I can't emphasize the word extremely).Both cache and core count are important(again look at Agena and Deneb and look at C2D Vs C2Q in modern games). There is a point where games stop scaling with CPU clocks since the GPU (yes even 5970) starts to bottleneck and can't process enough data.This happens with both Deneb and Nehalem.

Also first you need to find and show me "a bunch of games today" that can run the same @ 2Ghz and 4.8Ghz .There are no such games as I mentioned previously above.Second it wouldn't mean the games of 2014 would run the same on those 2 different CPU clocks since the games would a) be hardly playable with your current GPU if you would stick with it b) scaling would stop somewhere in between those two frequencies if you choose to buy a new GPU.The only way a game from 2014 could scale perfectly with clock speeds from 2 to 4.8Ghz is if it was coded with awesome multi core support and it uses all available CPU resources to the maximum(highly unlikely).

Quote:

---

I'm not to sure, we don't know how fast the L3 is. It could be enhanced much. I often see i7 with 3 times the bandwidth. Faster L3 could improve scaling.

---

L3 sharing policies are very different in Deneb/Thuban and Nehalem so you can't just compare the bandwidth like that.AMD uses victim(spill over cache) while intel uses inclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

What kind of a game would run the same @ 2Ghz and 4.8Ghz Deneb chip?? There is no such a game and if there was it would be extremely GPU bound(I can't emphasize the word extremely).Both cache and core count are important(again look at Agena and Deneb and look at C2D Vs C2Q in modern games). There is a point where games stop scaling with CPU clocks since the GPU (yes even 5970) starts to bottleneck and can't process enough data.This happens with both Deneb and Nehalem.

Also first you need to find and show me "a bunch of games today" that can run the same @ 2Ghz and 4.8Ghz .There are no such games as I mentioned previously above.Second it wouldn't mean the games of 2014 would run the same on those 2 different CPU clocks since the games would a) be hardly playable with your current GPU if you would stick with it b) scaling would stop somewhere in between those two frequencies if you choose to buy a new GPU.The only way a game from 2014 could scale perfectly with clock speeds from 2 to 4.8Ghz is if it was coded with awesome multi core support and it uses all available CPU resources to the maximum(highly unlikely).


L3 sharing policies are very different in Deneb/Thuban and Nehalem so you can't just compare the bandwidth like that.AMD uses victim(spill over cache) while intel uses inclusive.

---

I admit, I exaggerated a bit. Say a 2.8GHz Phenom II and a 4.8GHz one. Would they handle the games released in 2014 equally?


And I know there is differences between i7 and Phenom II caches. My point is we don't know if DB has 48-way, 64-way or 96-way caches. We don't know if they operate around 2GHz or if the are at core speed. We know nothing about the speed of communication between modules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

I admit, I exaggerated a bit. Say a 2.8GHz Phenom II and a 4.8GHz one. Would they handle the games released in 2014 equally?


And I know there is differences between i7 and Phenom II caches. My point is we don't know if DB has 48-way, 64-way or 96-way caches. We don't know if they operate around 2GHz or if the are at core speed. We know nothing about the speed of communication between modules.

---

2.8Ghz to 4.8Ghz is 71% improvement and this brings very minor improvement in today's games.In future games I think the GPU based PhysX (not necessarily meaning the NV's approach,using just the term) will play much bigger role and then ,again,CPU will become even less of a factor than it is today.What will mater is a number of relatively fast cores(IMO 4) and cache(by this I mean,at least Penryn and Deneb class @ 2.8-3Ghz).With offloaded PhysX to GPU and massively shader heavy game engines,CPU will use additional cores to offload AI for example,among other things.Also we have to keep in mind that maybe games will use new AVX instruction set and this may play a role in how certain chip performs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Server Bulldozer is to desktop bulldozer what server MC is to Phenom II.

Personally, i believe Bulldozer will be much more capable than these numbers suggest. 4 ALUs, loads/stores per clock, shared FPU, 32nm, and totally new core probably capable of much higher performance/watt suggest that bulldozer will be very very good.


So I'm hoping I'm wrong here. Since I am already planning to throw my AM2+ system away and buy an AM3+ system next year. ;)

---

Shanghai's desktop equivalent was Phenom II (Agena). Now Istanbul was the 6-core Server processor that AMD came out with later on and its desktop equivalent(re-engineered) is Thuban. Magny Cours is a different core and was not worked into desktop platforms.

So... what it means is, improvements from the core modifications/ improvements in MC have not really been witnessed in desktop arena, as the desktop chippery is still based on older Shanghai and Istanbul equivalents. From that you could deduce that desktop chips should ideally see a really nice boost. Personally, i'd not be expecting anything less than 20-25 odd percent in single threaded apps, given increased cache and new instruction sets and well a hell of a lot more in multi-threaded scenario.

Slightly OT but from what I see AMD with the MC's has got a excellent product, just need to get the clocks up.
A 12 core MC at 3000mhz would be a force to reckon with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

2.8Ghz to 4.8Ghz is 71% improvement and this brings very minor improvement in today's games.In future games I think the GPU based PhysX (not necessarily meaning the NV's approach,using just the term) will play much bigger role and then ,again,CPU will become even less of a factor than it is today.What will mater is a number of relatively fast cores(IMO 4) and cache(by this I mean,at least Penryn and Deneb class @ 2.8-3Ghz).With offloaded PhysX to GPU and massively shader heavy game engines,CPU will use additional cores to offload AI for example,among other things.Also we have to keep in mind that maybe games will use new AVX instruction set and this may play a role in how certain chip performs.

---

So you believe that there will be no practical difference between the two? You are very vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Shanghai's desktop equivalent was Phenom II (Agena). Now Istanbul was the 6-core Server processor that AMD came out with later on and its desktop equivalent(re-engineered) is Thuban. Magny Cours is a different core and was not worked into desktop platforms.

So... what it means is, improvements from the core modifications/ improvements in MC have not really been witnessed in desktop arena, as the desktop chippery is still based on older Shanghai and Istanbul equivalents. From that you could deduce that desktop chips should ideally see a really nice boost. Personally, i'd not be expecting anything less than 20-25 odd percent in single threaded apps, given increased cache and new instruction sets and well a hell of a lot more in multi-threaded scenario.

---

Thuban still is to MC what Zambezi is to Interlagos. They have the same relationships. Thuban is AM3 desktop, MC is two such dies for G34. Zambezi is AM3 desktop, Interlagos is two such dies for G34.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

A 12 core MC at 3000mhz would be a force to reckon with.

---

Yeah, for heatsink manufacturers. :D

Honestly, I'm impressed with AMDs achievements with MCs power usage. But I think that 3GHz would be impossible on 45nm. It have to consume a third of what Phenom II 940 does per core. I think 12 cores at 2.2GHz is amazing enough. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Slightly OT but from what I see AMD with the MC's has got a excellent product, just need to get the clocks up.
A 12 core MC at 3000mhz would be a force to reckon with.

---

Yeah that's true.The only problem is they can't crank the clocks that high AND stay in the 105W ACP bracket ;). What I find interesting is that MC and Lisbon(D1) appear to still not using the low k dielectric tweak AMD implemented in Thuban silicon (E0) which practically made possible for AMD to make a hex core desktop chip with the same clock as QC equivalent(955BE,3.6Ghz @ 3 cores with Turbo) while staying within 125W TDP and actually drawing less than 955BE under full load.If they were to use this major process node tweak on server parts,I think they could bring up the clocks on MC by at least 15% while staying at the same power bands as today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

So you believe that there will be no practical difference between the two? You are very vague.

---

No,I believe the difference won't be big or impact gameplay that much.Not to mention there won't be 4.8Ghz Deneb chip to actually compare this(unless you do the dry ice session and test it yourself :p:).But I figure many will be looking to replace their SB or Bulldozer desktop chips with something new in 2014 :p: so testing a Deneb on Dry Ice with the latest GPUs wouldn't be on anyone's priority list ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Since they are working within the same thermal envelope I don't see why it would be meaningless.

If bulldozer performs =12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores just as good as MC scales from 1 to 12 cores..

If bulldozer performs <12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores better than MC scales from 1 to 12 cores.

If bulldozer performs >12.5% better per core, then it scales to 16 cores worse than MC scales from 1 to 12 cores.

1.8 times performance is 90% scaling. 90% of 2 is 1.8. ;)

And we don't know about scaling between modules.

The fact that the scaling within modules isn't the same as the scaling between modules complicates the situation a bit. ;)

Is it just I who think this discussion is going somewhere? ;)
I think that we are a bit closer to conclude that due to modules, bulldozer scale a bit worse per core than MC. And that Bulldozer might have quite high single threaded performance. I think that a module, with all it's shared parts, is better on single threads than a dualcore, but as AMDs states, scales a bit worse. It all comes down to how well BD scales between modules.

---

OK let me help you to understand.
DB module consists of two quasy-cores, not full cores. They have some shared hardware. You can consider them as hiperthreading. In other words, when one core performance is 100%, 2 cores have only 180%, not 200%.
Same for 8 modules: 800% when used single core within each module, and 1440% using 16 threads with 8 modules and taking ideal case 100% scaling of modules.

It is just very good hiperthreading compared to intel's one.

Regarding scaling of MC and BD you wrote above:
Scaling itself means performance increase when adding same cores. Say, Phenom II 8 cores to 12 cores while having same frequency/IPC per core.. So, again, forget your 12.5. That number is only for 16-threaded Interlagos compared to 12-core MC.
4 module BD will have significantly higher clock speed. Particularly in desktop processors having 125 watt TDP.
And you correctly figured out that single-threaded performance is going to be significantly higher that Phenom II. Actually I see it within 20%-25% considering what we already know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Thuban still is to MC what Zambezi is to Interlagos. They have the same relationships. Thuban is AM3 desktop, MC is two such dies for G34. Zambezi is AM3 desktop, Interlagos is two such dies for G34.

---

Thuban has more in common with Istanbul than with Magny Cours. Magny Cours is an improved new micro architecture which was only to be released for server market, as AMD was hoping that both Fusion and Bulldozer (specifically for desktop) would materialize sooner than this. However, in the server market, it was getting rather too close for comfort with improved Intel server chippery. AMD addressed this situation in the server market with Magny Cours. There is no Magny Cours derived desktop part in the market, but only ones based on Shanghai (Agena) and Istanbul (Thuban).

Which is why i personally have an opinion that we would see a nice jump when it comes to new desktop architecture. However original Phenom was supposed to do so too... So unless things go really that bad for AMD in desktop arena, it is all rosy going forward. Sandy Bridge should have some competition and not just on cost front.

Then again, you have mentioned in another post, Intel still continue with their BS compiler frauds... who knows how much of a negative impact that has on AMD's processor in real world scenario. In one study they found that there is 15-20 odd percent increase in performance, when you change the vendor id from "AMD" to "Genuine Intel". Which is funny, given there's only so much difference between Phenom II and i7's. :P

these thread always end up in a never ending argument of cpu X is better then cpu Y .....

No we speak about scaling of hiperthreaded cores...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

these thread always end up in a never ending argument of cpu X is better then cpu Y .....

---

are you saying female cpus are better than male cpus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

No,I believe the difference won't be big or impact gameplay that much.Not to mention there won't be 4.8Ghz Deneb chip to actually compare this(unless you do the dry ice session and test it yourself :p:).But I figure many will be looking to replace their SB or Bulldozer desktop chips with something new in 2014 :p: so testing a Deneb on Dry Ice with the latest GPUs wouldn't be on anyone's priority list ;).

---

Well I say that we don't nedd a 4.8GHz phenom II for that expermient, I say that a chip much faster than Phenom II 940 3GHz will perform much better in games in 2014. And I say that Core i7 is such a chip, and I say Zambezi better be such a chip. Furthermore, it's my opinion that this benchmark is a very bad indicator of real world performance.

I think you are a hypocrite that claims amount of cores and L3 will be important, but at the same time neglect the importance of the architectures properties like IPC and frequency. I say that an i7 that beats a Phenom II with a wide margin in todays games will do so on the games of 2014. And not suddenly become equal just because a GPU limited bench from today showed them to be equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

OK let me help you to understand.
DB module consists of two quasy-cores, not full cores. They have some shared hardware. You can consider them as hiperthreading. In other words, when one core performance is 100%, 2 cores have only 180%, not 200%.
Same for 8 modules: 800% when used single core within each module, and 1440% using 16 threads with 8 modules and taking ideal case 100% scaling of modules.

It is just very good hiperthreading compared to intel's one.

---

I know very well about the information that is released on Bulldozer so far. And if we should consider it to be like a good hyperthreading we should call Zambezi a quad core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

Regarding scaling of MC and BD you wrote above:
Scaling itself means performance increase when adding same cores. Say, Phenom II 8 cores to 12 cores while having same frequency/IPC per core.. So, again, forget your 12.5. That number is only for 16-threaded Interlagos compared to 12-core MC.
4 module BD will have significantly higher clock speed. Particularly in desktop processors having 125 watt TDP.
And you correctly figured out that single-threaded performance is going to be significantly higher that Phenom II. Actually I see it within 20%-25% considering what we already know.

---

I don't think you really understood what I said.
Thuban is a higher clocked singlechip piece for AM3 just as Zambezi is a higher clocked singlechip piece for AM3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Thuban has more in common with Istanbul than with Magny Cours. Magny Cours is an improved new micro architecture which was only to be released for server market, as AMD was hoping that both Fusion and Bulldozer (specifically for desktop) would materialize sooner than this. However, in the server market, it was getting rather too close for comfort with improved Intel server chippery. AMD addressed this situation in the server market with Magny Cours. There is no Magny Cours derived desktop part in the market, but only ones based on Shanghai (Agena) and Istanbul (Thuban).

Which is why i personally have an opinion that we would see a nice jump when it comes to new desktop architecture. However original Phenom was supposed to do so too... So unless things go really that bad for AMD in desktop arena, it is all rosy going forward. Sandy Bridge should have some competition and not just on cost front.

---

The differences between Istanbul and Magny Cours is none except that Magny Cours has a new socket. You can see Magny Cours like two Istanbuls in the same package, the new socket makes sure the communicate quickly and each have dual channel DDR3, effectively making it quad channel. The solution with Interlagos will be the same, two Zambezi-like opterons on the same package.

So an Istanbul and a Magny Cours will have the same relationship as a single die bulldozer compared to a dual die bulldozer.


If you still claim that Magny Cours have some improvements over istanbul other than the socket related ones (the same as dual die BD also haves compared to single die BD) please provide a source for you claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Then again, you have mentioned in another post, Intel still continue with their BS compiler frauds... who knows how much of a negative impact that has on AMD's processor in real world scenario. In one study they found that there is 15-20 odd percent increase in performance, when you change the vendor id from "AMD" to "Genuine Intel". Which is funny, given there's only so much difference between Phenom II and i7's. :P

---

Honestly I don't think changing vendor ID is enough. I think the differences in compiling go deeper. Better tailored for intels way of making caches or executing software for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Well I say that we don't nedd a 4.8GHz phenom II for that expermient, I say that a chip much faster than Phenom II 940 3GHz will perform much better in games in 2014. And I say that Core i7 is such a chip, and I say Zambezi better be such a chip. Furthermore, it's my opinion that this benchmark is a very bad indicator of real world performance.

I think you are a hypocrite that claims amount of cores and L3 will be important, but at the same time neglect the importance of the architectures properties like IPC and frequency. I say that an i7 that beats a Phenom II with a wide margin in todays games will do so on the games of 2014. And not suddenly become equal just because a GPU limited bench from today showed them to be equal.

---

Well I think you understand too little when it comes to this subject so I won't bother discussing it with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

I think you are a hypocrite that claims amount of cores and L3 will be important, but at the same time neglect the importance of the architectures properties like IPC and frequency.

---

I say they are important for AMD. Very important. You talk about games, games and more games. You talk about the ONLY thing which does not scale well with more cores. The thing is that gaming performance doesn't really bring AMD the income it needs. Server platform cost-efficiency brings them the income. So really, I see their approach being the right one.

When it is easier to increase the amount of cores than the IPC, then why not do so? ...especially when the target market scales well with more cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

I know very well about the information that is released on Bulldozer so far. And if we should consider it to be like a good hyperthreading we should call Zambezi a quad core.

---

Exactly, and very very good hiperthreading - up to 80% of real core!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Well I think you understand too little when it comes to this subject so I won't bother discussing it with you.

---

Well you haven't presented any argument yet. You talk about L3 cache matter and cores matters. But raw speed doesn't matter? It simply doesn't make any sense. There is no reason to why a processor which is capable to greatly outperform another processor in every game of today, suddenly wouldn't do the same in the games of 2014.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

I say they are important for AMD. Very important. You talk about games, games and more games. You talk about the ONLY thing which does not scale well with more cores. The thing is that gaming performance doesn't really bring AMD the income it needs. Server platform cost-efficiency brings them the income. So really, I see their approach being the right one.

When it is easier to increase the amount of cores than the IPC, then why not do so? ...especially when the target market scales well with more cores.

---

We aren't talking about what's profitable and what's not. We are talking about things from a consumer point of view. And there is nothing to argue about in multi threaded performance right now. The discussion is about how things are in single threaded performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

Exactly, and very very good hiperthreading - up to 80% of real core!!!

---

You miss one little point, hyperthreading can lower performance, this solution might even increase performance in single threaded applications. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Well you haven't presented any argument yet. You talk about L3 cache matter and cores matters. But raw speed doesn't matter? It simply doesn't make any sense. There is no reason to why a processor which is capable to greatly outperform another processor in every game of today, suddenly wouldn't do the same in the games of 2014.

---

"Greatly outperform" in any game(for real ?) at what settings?In real world gaming?Nice try though.

@Boris
take a look at steam hardware surveys and see how many gaming rigs have quads
your predictions for gaming are not very valid, by 2014, we might see >50% of games be quad optimized, but not much more than that.

why would i spend 1000$ on a cpu, when 300$ does just as good, and might be 10% worse in 4 years, when 300$ then could get me something that stomps the 1000$ cpu of today

you really should look into the limiting factors for cpus in games and try and assume how that will change in the future. do you really expect the requirements for games to increase 4x, when in the last 4 years have maybe just doubled.

Also I see some are describing a BD core as a "half-core".I can't see why that is a case.Is it because of the 10% hit in scaling within a module?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

You miss one little point, hyperthreading can lower performance, this solution might even increase performance in single threaded applications.

---

That is a mistake.
Consider scenario:
1 thread is running on single core of BD delivering a 100% of performance.
2 threads are running on 2 cores within same DB module and delivers 180% of performance.
Now, 2 same threads are running on 2 cores of different DB modules. They deliver 200% of performance. So we saw a performance impact - 180% instead of 200%. And no performance increase...
And this is exactly as it would be with Intel's core with HT.

You can call it hiperthreading, or whatever, but it is a fact: a DB module is not equal to 2 cores and then it should not be considered this way. Just a module, 2-threaded module

AMD calls it an optimized dual core,as it is an optimized dual core...
And no it has nothing to do with hyperthreading.

i wont turn this into a semantics debate but i wouldnt call a module a dual core because it can run two threads. the cores share a front end that cannot be separated from them and still function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

That is a mistake.
Consider scenario:
1 thread is running on single core of BD delivering a 100% of performance.
2 threads are running on 2 cores within same DB module and delivers 180% of performance.
Now, 2 same threads are running on 2 cores of different DB modules. They deliver 200% of performance. So we saw a performance impact - 180% instead of 200%. And no performance increase...
And this is exactly as it would be with Intel's core with HT.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

You can call it hiperthreading, or whatever, but it is a fact: a DB module is not equal to 2 cores and then it should not be considered this way. Just a module, 2-threaded module

---

No they will not, hell 200% i am sure SB cant do that :D. The thing behind the arc is to make the cores smaller so that there are more of them and this helps them in better speeds. Intel does things a bit differently and well HT is not super effective everywhere "X3 435 vs i5 530"

Sorry if this has been brought up, i'm struggling to follow this thread now!, but If you look at the 50% higher performance claims as a fully utilised, 4 Module - 8 module CPU, then shouldn't single threaded performance actally be a strong point? since a single core processing a thread isn't sharing the front end, nor the cache?

The statement that performance "scales 80%" from 1 core, to 2 cores in a module kind of proves this point.

This also makes any "12.5%" IPC per core calculation wrong.

I asked this quesiton earlier, (I think) but I'll ask again. Does anyone know how 4 threads are handled by the OS on a 4 module - 8 core BD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

The differences between Istanbul and Magny Cours is none except that Magny Cours has a new socket.

---

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Sorry if this has been brought up, i'm struggling to follow this thread now!, but If you look at the 50% higher performance claims as a fully utilised, 4 Module - 8 module CPU, then shouldn't single threaded performance actally be a strong point? since a single core processing a thread isn't sharing the front end, nor the cache?

---

In theory it should given that it uses resources exclusively. But it depends on the uarch, is it similar to K7 lineage or something new ?

Quote:

---

The statement that performance "scales 80%" from 1 core, to 2 cores in a module kind of proves this point.

---

Scaling is a meaningless number in this context.

A module vs. 2 cores :
- one multithreaded front end / 2 front ends
- 2 integer clusters / 2 integer clusters
- one FPU / 2 FPUs
- shared L2 / shared or exclusive L2s

You can get to 80% from 1 to 2 cores in a single scenario : integer calculations.

Quote:

---

This also makes any "12.5%" IPC per core calculation wrong.

---

1.5x more performance / 1.33x more cores = 1.1278x more performance per core.
12.78%.

Quote:

---

I asked this quesiton earlier, (I think) but I'll ask again. Does anyone know how 4 threads are handled by the OS on a 4 module - 8 core BD?

---

No different than a current 4 core CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

In theory it should given that it uses resources exclusively. But it depends on the uarch, is it similar to K7 lineage or something new ?


Scaling is a meaningless number in this context.

A module vs. 2 cores :
- one multithreaded front end / 2 front ends
- 2 integer clusters / 2 integer clusters
- one FPU / 2 FPUs
- shared L2 / shared or exclusive L2s

You can get to 80% from 1 to 2 cores in a single scenario : integer calculations.


1.5x more performance / 1.33x more cores = 1.1278x more performance per core.
12.78%.


No different than a current 4 core CPU.

---

Now I'm not a very intiitive person BUT I swear to you that I just KNEW you'd be in this thread tonight!:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

"Greatly outperform" in any game(for real ?) at what settings?In real world gaming?Nice try though.

---

Try to read what I am saying. NOT in real world gaming, but in situations that aren't GPU-limited. Because these processors won't be GPU-limited 2014 in the same way. Just as a A64 4400+ bought 2006 isn't GPU limited with a 5770.
So, instead of reading your bench that says an Athlon II X2 can compete with a 980X, you do an ordinary game bench, where you measure the differences between the CPUs, not measure the GPU. And that way you know which CPU that is most likely to still have adequate performance 2014.

I say that if an i7 can outperform an Phenom II with 50% in the games we have today, it's much more likely to achieve playable FPS 2014. But if we do it your way, and limit them down to the same FPS in the games of today with underpowered GPU, we will be fooled into believing they have the same gaming performance.

Example:
In the year 2010, CPU A limits a game at 50FPS, CPU B limits the same game at 100FPS.
In the year 2014, CPU A limits a new game at 25FPS, CPU B limits the same game at 50FPS. CPU B is still good.
BUT, if we do the 2010 test with a GPU that limits the game at 30FPS, we won't see the difference, and will be disappointed when our CPU A proved to have a poor longevity.

And of course I know that you can't predict this exactly and that their relationship performance wise may change. But that's beside the point.
2004 my A64 ran just as fast as my friends P4, since we had the same GPU. But 2007, my old A64 was the only one that still performed good in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

@Boris
take a look at steam hardware surveys and see how many gaming rigs have quads
your predictions for gaming are not very valid, by 2014, we might see >50% of games be quad optimized, but not much more than that.

why would i spend 1000$ on a cpu, when 300$ does just as good, and might be 10% worse in 4 years, when 300$ then could get me something that stomps the 1000$ cpu of today

you really should look into the limiting factors for cpus in games and try and assume how that will change in the future. do you really expect the requirements for games to increase 4x, when in the last 4 years have maybe just doubled.

---

I don't talk about quad, I talk about any CPU against any other CPU. And no, I don't expect them to increase 4x. But I expect them to increase. And IF requirements double every four years, then will the CPU with 100% more performance today last several years longer.

I don't say that you should buy more expensive CPUs because of games 2014. All I'm trying to say is that if two processors are comparable today, around the same performance and price, except that one of the has much better performance in games. The one with better performance in games have an advantage in a couple of years.

I actually don't understand how people can say that great differences in performance in the games today won't matter later. If you buy a new CPU every year maybe, but most people don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEA

That is a mistake.
Consider scenario:
1 thread is running on single core of BD delivering a 100% of performance.
2 threads are running on 2 cores within same DB module and delivers 180% of performance.
Now, 2 same threads are running on 2 cores of different DB modules. They deliver 200% of performance. So we saw a performance impact - 180% instead of 200%. And no performance increase...
And this is exactly as it would be with Intel's core with HT.

---

You misunderstand me. ;) I say that hyperthreading can leave a performance impact in single threaded applications. But a module design might actually increase in performance in single threaded applications compared to core design, since it now can focus the prefetch and FPU on only one thread. :)
Two FPUs might increase performance in single threaded programs. If the FPU wasn't shared, this wouldn't be possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Sorry if this has been brought up, i'm struggling to follow this thread now!, but If you look at the 50% higher performance claims as a fully utilised, 4 Module - 8 module CPU, then shouldn't single threaded performance actally be a strong point? since a single core processing a thread isn't sharing the front end, nor the cache?

The statement that performance "scales 80%" from 1 core, to 2 cores in a module kind of proves this point.

This also makes any "12.5%" IPC per core calculation wrong.

---

Yes, you are right.
I've stated in a previous post that the performance must be higher than 112.5% in single threaded applications if bulldozer scales bad over 4 threads (8 for MCM). But I've also said that it must be lower than 112.5% if it scales better than MC.

You can't have more than 12.5% performance increase and 33% more cores at once and still only deliver 50% more performance with the same scaling. That's why the scaling must be worse in Bulldozer to achieve more than 12.5% performance increase in single threaded application.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

I asked this quesiton earlier, (I think) but I'll ask again. Does anyone know how 4 threads are handled by the OS on a 4 module - 8 core BD?

---

I think (hope) that it will try to have one thread per module at once. Four heavy threads would be spread out on 4 modules. It will need 5 heavy threads or more before it's giving a module two threads.
But unfortunately I don't really have a clue. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

---

Yes, and a bit different process on Thuban. But were talking performance wise. Is the ALU or FPU different? Any internal latencies? Or will there be no difference in performance if you negate the MCM design?
I think there is no difference in performance between two istanbul and one Magny Cours that can be derived from the MCM design. (better interconnect).

Or if it is, can you enlighten me what that difference would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

---

However, most of the architectural changes made to the core weren't publicized by AMD... Now that it is available in open market and next gen tech is almost here... could we possibly have more information on core tech in Magny Cours?

Oh, before someone flames me, i know JF has a job to do and i respect that. If he shares info, well and good. If he can't, it is alright just as well. However, i had to ask. Curiosity begot the cat and now its me. :D

I know only at Thuban core iis included low-K

What do you guys guess the single thread performance will be when only 1 core per module gets used instead of 2? Do you think the extra resorces will give much of a boost compared to using both the cores. I know there's shared L2 cache, but not sure what else can be used in this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilOne

What do you guys guess the single thread performance will be when only 1 core per module gets used instead of 2? Do you think the extra resorces will give much of a boost compared to using both the cores. I know there's shared L2 cache, but not sure what else can be used in this way.

---

We already have numbers on this. Running two threads will lower performance of each "core" 10%. That's why it's important to balance the threads evenly between modules. On the other hand the design seems to have lots of power to begin with.

i like these threads ... cheap entertainment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

We already have numbers on this. Running two threads will lower performance of each "core" 10%. That's why it's important to balance the threads evenly between modules. On the other hand the design seems to have lots of power to begin with.

---

This is only a statement about the effect of adding a second core. Power etc. seems not to be included here. So if only one cluster is being used, a thread could run ~11% faster solely based on this statement (it's not a fact, nothing is measured here). Further the saved power of the second cluster, L1D$ etc. and less utilization of the 256 bit FPU could leave some headroom to boost the single running cluster to maybe +30% overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dresdenboy

This is only a statement about the effect of adding a second core. Power etc. seems not to be included here. So if only one cluster is being used, a thread could run ~11% faster solely based on this statement (it's not a fact, nothing is measured here). Further the saved power of the second cluster, L1D$ etc. and less utilization of the 256 bit FPU could leave some headroom to boost the single running cluster to maybe +30% overall.

---

You have a point. And of course, anything regarding actual performance is based on statements and nothing more at this point.
I mentioned the possibility of good single thread performance before, based on the shared resources like FPU focusing on only one core.

What do you think about turbo in bulldozer? Will it be there? And will it work on core level or module level? Personally I guess that it will be a turbo on core level further increasing performance in 1-4 threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

In theory it should given that it uses resources exclusively. But it depends on the uarch, is it similar to K7 lineage or something new ?


Scaling is a meaningless number in this context.

A module vs. 2 cores :
- one multithreaded front end / 2 front ends
- 2 integer clusters / 2 integer clusters
- one FPU / 2 FPUs
- shared L2 / shared or exclusive L2s

You can get to 80% from 1 to 2 cores in a single scenario : integer calculations.


1.5x more performance / 1.33x more cores = 1.1278x more performance per core.
12.78%.


No different than a current 4 core CPU.

---

That's 12.78% with the same number of threads/cores.. (12 in this example)

If you only get 80% (integer) performance going from 1 to 2 cores, then for single threaded performance, or in Boris example, with only 1 thread per module, then under that same calculation it would be more like 22-25% more performance / core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Scaling is a meaningless number in this context.

A module vs. 2 cores :
- one multithreaded front end / 2 front ends
- 2 integer clusters / 2 integer clusters
- one FPU / 2 FPUs
- shared L2 / shared or exclusive L2s

---

The multithreaded front end can be wider because it's higher throughput will be useful.
The one FPU is twice as powerful in throughput.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

What do you think about turbo in bulldozer? Will it be there? And will it work on core level or module level? Personally I guess that it will be a turbo on core level further increasing performance in 1-4 threads.

---

John already wrote, that BD will have some improved form of turbo. And I posted one of my interpretations here. There is a lot that can be done. And further a 16 core chip like Interlagos will have it's mem channels saturated, since they're not only used for normal data fetches but also prefetches, which sometimes are useless. So running less threads not only creates power headroom, but also mem bandwidth headroom available for more aggressive prefetches or modern techniques like runahead execution/scout threads. If there is not much mem b/w left, not much could be done with such methods, since they have lower priority than actual requests.

don't try to calc the +% performance, you'll never find really how much.

Just read blogs and wait 24.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

don't try to calc the +% performance, you'll never find really how much.

Just read blogs and wait 24.

---

Of course we won't get any performance numbers by calculating. But we can make some ill founded calculations on the scaling differences. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

However, most of the architectural changes made to the core weren't publicized by AMD... Now that it is available in open market and next gen tech is almost here... could we possibly have more information on core tech in Magny Cours?

Oh, before someone flames me, i know JF has a job to do and i respect that. If he shares info, well and good. If he can't, it is alright just as well. However, i had to ask. Curiosity begot the cat and now its me. :D

---

Sorry, we don't get into core level things here. There are things that I just can't talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

don't try to calc the +% performance, you'll never find really how much.

Just read blogs and wait 24.

---

Hot Chips is about the architecture, you will not see performance estimates or benchmarks.

You'll see a lot more about what is inside the core, but we won't make statements about performance other than what we have already said because a.) it is not that type of event and b.) we don't have any benchmarks released unless we have final silicon or are very confident that final silicon will behave the same as what we have in our hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Sorry, we don't get into core level things here. There are things that I just can't talk about.

---

Thanks for replying mate! :up:

p.s: dunno if you checked this other thread, but here's a tip for your legal team. :D

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ld#post4500153

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Thanks for replying mate! :up:

p.s: dunno if you checked this other thread, but here's a tip for your legal team. :D

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ld#post4500153

---

That is a suggestion, not something that is real. Akin to saying if someone had a gun they might rob a bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

That is a suggestion, not something that is real. Akin to saying if someone had a gun they might rob a bank.

---

Understood. However, we are talking about someone who's been caught more than once with their hand in the cookie jar, sorry that was Dell (pun is intended). This i type on an Intel system. O' the horror, the shame :ROTF:

who resurrected this thread...why? this is from February man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Slightly OT but from what I see AMD with the MC's has got a excellent product, just need to get the clocks up.
A 12 core MC at 3000mhz would be a force to reckon with.

---

More info here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UcQDUR-fU :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Hot Chips is about the architecture, you will not see performance estimates or benchmarks.

You'll see a lot more about what is inside the core, but we won't make statements about performance other than what we have already said because a.) it is not that type of event and b.) we don't have any benchmarks released unless we have final silicon or are very confident that final silicon will behave the same as what we have in our hand.

---

how in dept would be the architecture analysis at hot chips ????

will you leave some things out until the launch or will it all be explained ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

More info here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UcQDUR-fU :rofl:

---

Stay classy.

I think this is time to show how good is CMT compare to SMT, a lot of trash talk ... no numbers ....
(For those who don't know me personally, I have having a big smile , and I am saying this on an humours tone ... no need to get mad at me (Because I work for int...) , I actually love computer architecture, and The AMD guys are usually pretty smart, I just want to know what cool new stuff they have.)

Time to show the goods !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

how in dept would be the architecture analysis at hot chips ????

will you leave some things out until the launch or will it all be explained ???

---

Hot Chips is a technology forum. We will be there talking about how we are solving some of the issues with today's compute through the architecture, we'll break down some of the components and take the audiesnce through them. There will be no "marketing", there will be no benchmarks, no pricing, no launch details - it is not that kind of event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

More info here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UcQDUR-fU :rofl:

---

Touche Francois.. I understand..
Also one of my favorite songs..
A shame when Cass Elliot died..
I still think if we can get one of these dual 12 core MC systems up to 3+GHz it would make for an interesting system..:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Touche Francois.. I understand..
Also one of my favorite songs..
A shame when Cass Elliot died..
I still think if we can get one of these dual 12 core MC systems up to 3+GHz it would make for an interesting system..:D

---

Are you really going to let this childish smack talking go on? Lesser people have been banned for less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

Are you really going to let this childish smack talking go on? Lesser people have been banned for less.

---

I see a lot of teasing from a guy that works for a company.
and yes, maybe it qualifies as smack talk but not rude or flaming.
Now to be honest I'd be a little happier if Francois stayed out of the AMD threads and JF-AMD stayed out of the Intel threads.
The problem is that in some ways they are alike.
They are both proud of what their respective companies make and want to share what they can with all of us.
Am I goint to ban them? NO.
Have I in the past sent PM's to them asking them to cool it in the other companies thread? Yes..
Yea, sometimes it's tough being an admin here..:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I see a lot of teasing from a guy that works for a company.
and yes, maybe it qualifies as smack talk but not rude or flaming.
Now to be honest I'd be a little happier if Francois stayed out of the AMD threads and JF-AMD stayed out of the Intel threads.
The problem is that in some ways they are alike.
They are both proud of what their respective companies make and want to share what they can with all of us.
Am I goint to ban them? NO.
Have I in the past sent PM's to them asking them to cool it in the other companies thread? Yes..
Yea, sometimes it's tough being an admin here..:shrug:

---

The Intel people and the AMD people usually have same back ground, same passion and same schools for their kids ... we are the same people ... living in the same areas ...
The problem is that sometime, people take the competition between intel and AMD a little bit too seriously ... let me give you some equation to work on ...

in 1999, Francois and Mike G from AMD where in Helsinky, to work on a famous Bench together ... and compete ... here is the equation

Francois x (intel) + Mike x (AMD) = 2 drunk guys having fun in helsinky in the evening ... sharing stories and so on ... making fun of each others mistake on the code ...
(Link to the engine shared with Max Payne, the credits: http://www.answers.com/topic/max-payne )

If you guys could see how we have cafe ALL THE TIME, or burgers together, may be you could realize how those "I am blue" or "I am green" are silly.
One of my good Buddy is QA manager for NV ...

We are the same and some time, humour is really humour, and you are looking for hate where there are none.

Best regards,

Francois, back to the subject

I do see your point. Well, it's a tough pill to swallow that you guys apparently don't have an agenda, posting here. In the end the companies you belong to compete for the same customer base, so it can't be helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

I do see your point. Well, it's a tough pill to swallow that you guys apparently don't have an agenda, posting here. In the end the companies you belong to compete for the same customer base, so it can't be helped.

---

well, if i had an agenda ... i would certainly not post with my ID here ... I play honnest with you, always ... never hide behind any fake IDs ...

We all need to relax a little, and learn to accept that Green or Blue, we have the same passion and hobby, really ...

(In this case of me posting in this thread, it was really a good joke for movie man, nothing more ... some joke into this world can not hurt if we are all honnest)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

The Intel people and the AMD people usually have same back ground, same passion and same schools for their kids ... we are the same people ... living in the same areas ...
The problem is that sometime, people take the competition between intel and AMD a little bit too seriously ... let me give you some equation to work on ...

in 1999, Francois and Mike G from AMD where in Helsinky, to work on a famous Bench together ... and compete ... here is the equation

Francois x (intel) + Mike x (AMD) = 2 drunk guys having fun in helsinky in the evening ... sharing stories and so on ... making fun of each others mistake on the code ...
(Link to the engine shared with Max Payne, the credits: http://www.answers.com/topic/max-payne )

If you guys could see how we have cafe ALL THE TIME, or burgers together, may be you could realize how those "I am blue" or "I am green" are silly.
One of my good Buddy is QA manager for NV ...

We are the same and some time, humour is really humour, and you are looking for hate where there are none.

Best regards,

Francois, back to the subject

---

I beleive you but many here see you coming into AMD threads and JF-AMD going into Intel threads as high company employees with an agenda.
I wish that both would stay in their companies respictive forums and show your own products and let the membership decide what is best for them.
Also would help keep my blood pressure down.:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

well, if i had an agenda ... i would certainly not post with my ID here ... I play honnest with you, always ... never hide behind any fake IDs ...

We all need to relax a little, and learn to accept that Green or Blue, we have the same passion and hobby, really ...

(In this case of me posting in this thread, it was really a good joke for movie man, nothing more ... some joke into this world can not hurt if we are all honnest)

---

Ahh, is that what it was.
Now I too enjoy a good joke now and then so I hope you laugh at my little joke!:rofl:

:rofl::ROTF:

He definitely sounds like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Hot Chips is a technology forum. We will be there talking about how we are solving some of the issues with today's compute through the architecture, we'll break down some of the components and take the audiesnce through them. There will be no "marketing", there will be no benchmarks, no pricing, no launch details - it is not that kind of event.

---

So we can only expect a litle part of BD architecture in that tech forum ?

I don't care about numbers ( not like evrybody ), but architecture is important, you said, you don't sell architecture but perf/watt, but without architecture, you don't have any processor. Architecture is important, when you update your cpu with a new architecture and new process, the boost may a lot more important than buy 200mhz more.

Especially when it's not a refresh, but a full new one.

I think, you'll talk about CMT and multithread, and what's is going for near futur +5 years in software. And what do choice CPU builders ? More cores or more better cores or less better core and huge better number of core ?

But will AMD deliver more information about the new exec unit ? The number of pipe stage, ALU and AGU, the wide of evry bus, is full support for avx, how will be supported avx in intel compilator and others, SSE5 is or not dead, if there is the needed improved update on dynamic branching that intel own far better than AMD from core 2 duo ?

i guess it's gonna be a exclusive memory cache design again but why not maybe why not hell, you choiced to change ? Victim buffer improved ? shared ?

I know you can't tell evrything, i'm just asking what are subjects are going to be unveiled on Hot chips.

And when is next post in your blog :D

And congrats for ATI works in discrete market :up:

when i first saw dr whos sub headline i thought 'damn bulldozer must awesome'. still very good joke mm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Now to be honest I'd be a little happier if Francois stayed out of the AMD threads and JF-AMD stayed out of the Intel threads.

---

I have made exactly one comment on an Intel thread, about Beckton. I said "looks hot."

And guess what, it's hot. Can't say the same for Francios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

So we can only expect a litle part of BD architecture in that tech forum ?

I don't care about numbers ( not like evrybody ), but architecture is important, you said, you don't sell architecture but perf/watt, but without architecture, you don't have any processor. Architecture is important, when you update your cpu with a new architecture and new process, the boost may a lot more important than buy 200mhz more.

Especially when it's not a refresh, but a full new one.

I think, you'll talk about CMT and multithread, and what's is going for near futur +5 years in software. And what do choice CPU builders ? More cores or more better cores or less better core and huge better number of core ?

But will AMD deliver more information about the new exec unit ? The number of pipe stage, ALU and AGU, the wide of evry bus, is full support for avx, how will be supported avx in intel compilator and others, SSE5 is or not dead, if there is the needed improved update on dynamic branching that intel own far better than AMD from core 2 duo ?

i guess it's gonna be a exclusive memory cache design again but why not maybe why not hell, you choiced to change ? Victim buffer improved ? shared ?

I know you can't tell evrything, i'm just asking what are subjects are going to be unveiled on Hot chips.

And when is next post in your blog :D

And congrats for ATI works in discrete market :up:

---

Yes, I went over the slides last night. There will be data on ALU/AGU, extensions, front end, Flex FP and more.

The slides will not have the same depth that the talk will because an engineer will be doing the voice over. We hope to get some of them to blog later, but the 20 questions blog should allow us to get some of the details out.

People just shouldn't expect Hot Chips to be a big unveiling. It is sharing details. Just don't want people getting to hyped on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I have made exactly one comment on an Intel thread, about Beckton. I said "looks hot."

And guess what, it's hot. Can't say the same for Francois.

---

While I hate his posts almost as much as yours, it's obvious that his tone is completely different. I'm yet to find a single post by JF-AMD that's not blatant AMD advertising. Please do everyone a favor and learn from Hans de Vries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

While I hate his posts almost as much as yours, it's obvious that his tone is completely different. I'm yet to find a single post by JF-AMD that's not blatant AMD advertising. Please do everyone a favor and learn from Hans de Vries.

---

Strange, I find both to basically not say anything, other than what's already out there. They are no different to the average user in this area, playing up one side, but they don't tend to knock the other.

I do however dislike the "our next product will blow you guys away" sort of posts, that occasionally they post.

otherwise, I prefer to have people from within the company around. Having access to people in the know, who can explain issues is a damn site better than listening to the daily trolling between fanbois.

I think its cool having actual insiders posting here too. They tend to have their hands tied as to exact details and releasing info early, but still nice to have people that have a better picture then the average consumer to draw knowledge from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

I'm yet to find a single post by JF-AMD that's not blatant AMD advertising

---

I would tell that the "AMD advertising" - that's exactly what everybody asks JF-AMD here to give us more info!

If you look at my posts you will see the the overwhelming majority do not compare to the competition and are answering questions of the folks on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

If you look at my posts you will see the the overwhelming majority do not compare to the competition and are answering questions of the folks on this board.

---

well, In my case, I overclock since 1986 on PC ... my 486DX33 became a DX40, and my DX2-66 became DX-80Mhz ... far before I joined intel in 1997 ...
I overclocked my ZX81 from 1Mhz to 1.1Mhz ... TV output was F.ck up when doing ASM code ;-)

And don't worry, you are doing fine, it is good to try to share your passion in any form it is. You are part of Server division, your tone is a little bit more serious, but it is ok. I think we all should be allowed to share and speak (11th article of the French constitution, 1st Amendement of the US constitution )

Some time, people need to learn that it is ok to do not agree, arguements and different opinions/diversity is what made great civilizations.
I wish we could hate less and love more ... (I sound like a hippie now ... lol :rofl:)

Please do not hate us because we have a Blue or Green badge, take us as we are, we respect you, please respect us, and then, we can have nice discussion where it would be easier for us to provide legitimate insites, when we can.

Let's drop the guns and go back to the topic, Bulldozer seems to have some nice features, something different, I don 't know it is good or bad, but new stuffs are always exciting, and in the worst case for me, if it is good, i got goooood reason to ask more cool stuff to my boss :) :up: , and that can't be bad ! it means more fun for the passionated engineers.

Bring it ! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

well, In my case, I overclock since 1986 on PC ... my 486DX33 became a DX40, and my DX2-66 became DX-80Mhz ... far before I joined intel in 1997 ...
I overclocked my ZX81 from 1Mhz to 1.1Mhz ... TV output was F.ck up when doing ASM code ;-)

And don't worry, you are doing fine, it is good to try to share your passion in any form it is. You are part of Server division, your tone is a little bit more serious, but it is ok. I think we all should be allowed to share and speak (11th article of the French constitution, 1st Amendement of the US constitution )

Some time, people need to learn that it is ok to do not agree, arguements and different opinions/diversity is what made great civilizations.
I wish we could hate less and love more ... (I sound like a hippie now ... lol :rofl:)

Please do not hate us because we have a Blue or Green badge, take us as we are, we respect you, please respect us, and then, we can have nice discussion where it would be easier for us to provide legitimate insites, when we can.

Let's drop the guns and go back to the topic, Bulldozer seems to have some nice features, something different, I don 't know it is good or bad, but new stuffs are always exciting, and in the worst case for me, if it is good, i got goooood reason to ask more cool stuff to my boss :) :up: , and that can't be bad ! it means more fun for the passionated engineers.

Bring it ! :)

---

do not hate the player, hate the game eh Francois?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

do not hate the player, hate the game eh Francois?

---

we just need to allow anybody to express himself, and learn how to tollerate different point of views, and allow humour some time. If we are here, it is because we are sharing the same passion, and we have to do it with respect and agree to accept the different point of views, it does not means you have to agree, just allow it. No need to go balistic when you see an opinion different of yours, it is just different, and this is what make human kind great, we can share, argue, and act based on many point of view ... The best thing is never the one proposed by one very loud guy, alone in his corner, people like Albert Einstein or Louis Pasteur did not become who they are just by doing their stuff in their corner, Albert had to learn all about the other's point of view before becoming a Genious ... we all have to accept input from other people to get smarter.

Internet forums are too often a place where few spoil the discussion by being too much into their imaginary war between blue and Green ... but they are missing the point, the real ennemie is not AMD, neither Intel, it is "cancer", and all of those disseases we could cure if we can crack the secrets of DNA ... so, don't get mad at me or JF because you don't agree with us, just spend this energy to do something good, crunch, build better crunching machine, give your feedback to AMD or Intel, tell us what you need, or even join the companies, but please, don't release your frustration on us ... we are working every day to improve the human kind technology ... this is what I want and like to do, and yes , some time, i tease you ... but it is never in a nasty way. When I was younger, i lost my temper on a SETI forum, well, I was an idiot then, and I really try to keep the debat higher now ...

so, bare with us, don't make fun of this, this is sincere, let's get the human kind scale challenge done ... crack the cancer, find alien radio waves, let's do something usefull.

So, let's hear the cool stuff about Bulldozer!

im very, very curious for second generation of Bulldozer, know, its long future (2012/2013), but...firstly second generation :-)