What to Expect From AMD at ISSCC 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

No more Phenom, no more Athlon. Probably it will be simply called AMD FX.

---

I've heard something about Vision A4, A6 and A8.
Seems logical and like a traditional AMD move. A4 sounds better than i3 and so on.

About the cebit bit, didnt JF told us to dont expect anything about BD at cebit ? Maybe its about Liano, current amd solutions (zacate withstanding) are kind of sub par so maybe that how theyve come with the 50% bit:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

About the cebit bit, didnt JF told us to dont expect anything about BD at cebit ? Maybe its about Liano, current amd solutions (zacate withstanding) are kind of sub par so maybe that how theyve come with the 50% bit:shrug:

---

But JF also said that he don't know anything about what's going on at the desktop side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Don't get too fired up about CeBIT. That is being run by our EMEA team. They would not disclose anything that HQ has not already said.

---

From where im standing he said to us that there isnt going to be any new information on CEBIT about bulldozer.Theres no way to intepret this sentence differently :shrug:
It would be great tho, to atleast see the machines working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by undone

UPDATE 2: Bulldozer Module VS Magny-Cours

http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/33300/2/

http://pics.computerbase.de/3/3/3/0/0/4.jpg

---

Any comparison vs. MC would come from my blog. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aten-Ra

If im not mistaken, DENEBs integer Execution unit has 3 integer pipes PLUS 3 Loas/Store (AGUs) pipes when Bulldozer Integer Execution Unit has 2 integer pipes PLUS 2 AGen(Address Generator).

So we have 3 int pipes for DENEB vs 2 int pipes for each BD Integer Execution Unit.

---

old architecture is 3 ALU/AGU pipelines which are shared. New architecture is 2 ALU + 2 AGU, all dedicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

That's early! Epic! :eek:

Edit: wait, it's not a release, it's a presentation. Or do I get it wrong?

---

Don't expect much, this is not a luanch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aten-Ra

http://www.abload.de/img/47mob.jpg

The DENEB don’t have FP FMACs but 3x Pipelines, FADD, FMUL,FMISC
Bulldozer FP has 4x pipelines, 2x 128-bit FMACs and 2x 128-bit MMX and one FP shared Scheduler that can issue 4x uops to the FP execution unit.

---

yes, that was a typo, we corrected it since then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But JF also said that he don't know anything about what's going on at the desktop side.

---

yes, but launch plans are shared between divisions, and I was having a beer with the desktop BD guy last monday, we stay in contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

I've heard something about Vision A4, A6 and A8.
Seems logical and like a traditional AMD move. A4 sounds better than i3 and so on.

---

IMHO there is a higher chance for FX.

4 cores BD - AMD FX-3xxx
6 cores BD - AMD FX-5xxx
8 cores BD - AMD FX-7xxx

for example...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

IMHO there is a higher chance for FX.

4 cores BD - AMD FX-4xxx > i3
6 cores BD - AMD FX-6xxx > i5
8 cores BD - AMD FX-8xxx > i7

for example...

---

Fixed ;)

numerically 4,6,8 sounds faster than 3,5,7 without even knowing anything other than the part number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

IMHO there is a higher chance for FX.

4 cores BD - AMD FX-3xxx
6 cores BD - AMD FX-5xxx
8 cores BD - AMD FX-7xxx

for example...

---

But the whole FX-XXXX is a bad idea. People will learn that FX is a processor but they won't learn which one to get. Where I work, when people talk about processors they just say i3, i5 or i7. People really don't care which i5 it is as long it's an i5. Cause they know that an i5 is good enough. Calling all bulldozers for just FX will make people confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But the whole FX-XXXX is a bad idea. People will learn that FX is a processor but they won't learn which one to get. Where I work, when people talk about processors they just say i3, i5 or i7. People really don't care which i5 it is as long it's an i5. Cause they know that an i5 is good enough. Calling all bulldozers for just FX will make people confused.

---

How is using FX# any different than i#?

Higher the # the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But the whole FX-XXXX is a bad idea. People will learn that FX is a processor but they won't learn which one to get. Where I work, when people talk about processors they just say i3, i5 or i7. People really don't care which i5 it is as long it's an i5. Cause they know that an i5 is good enough. Calling all bulldozers for just FX will make people confused.

---

Its the same as iX ,its pretty much identical :-).

i-X
FX-X

Besides, most i5`s are only dual core, which kinda makes your coworkers kinda moronic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thematrixhazune

How is using FX# any different than i#?

Higher the # the better.

---

i3 vs FX
i5 vs FX
i7 vs FX

See the difference?
The four digit numbers is nothing people care about. As I said, when people talk about intel CPUs the usually just say i5 or i7. Customers understand that i7 is the best one and so on. If you start talking about FX 4650 vs. FX 6450 people will be confused. People care about series, like i5, Core 2, Phenom II, Sempron. Not about modelnumbers like 940BE or E6400.
A4 and A8 is simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

Its the same as iX ,its pretty much identical :-).

i-X
FX-X

Besides, most i5`s are only dual core, which kinda makes your coworkers kinda moronic.

---

Not with four digits after the FX prefix. And my coworkers mostly sell computers to small companies and schools. i5 is good enough in most cases.

accualy, the phenom and athlon brands will be gone. all that will remain will be vision. vision black, professional, and ultimate. dunno what is what, what will go above what. this is just a rumour

+1 with Boris
most people are not intuitive enough to realizing that the first number for the 4 number string have a pattern about the basic performance of the chip. unless someone is familiar with the entire LINE they will not be able to know whats high and low, end up getting pissed off cause they feel stupid, and never care to learn how the numbers work.

i would rather see FX8-xxx, FX4-xxx
and based on what weve seen sofar with E and C numbers, maybe AMD is sticking with 3 numbers after the character label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Not with four digits after the FX prefix. And my coworkers mostly sell computers to small companies and schools. i5 is good enough in most cases.

---

Intel has more numbers too, Its
->Intel Core i7 990X for example
So
->AMD FX8xxx

is different how ?
Besides, this debacle is kinda pointles we have no confirmed model designation, not even ONE :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

i3 vs FX
i5 vs FX
i7 vs FX

See the difference?
The four digit numbers is nothing people care about. As I said, when people talk about intel CPUs the usually just say i5 or i7. Customers understand that i7 is the best one and so on. If you start talking about FX 4650 vs. FX 6450 people will be confused. People care about series, like i5, Core 2, Phenom II, Sempron. Not about modelnumbers like 940BE or E6400.
A4 and A8 is simple.

---

So the possibility of:

FX4-xx
FX6-xx
FX8-xx

is out of your world and can never exsist?
And again i5 is stupid as it both holds quad and dual cores, and i dont think amd will be any better tho. We've already seen the naming of the first fuzion parts brazos, wich are: C30/50 and E-240/350 in wich both series contains single and dual cores wich is just stupid. The E-series should have both been dual cores and C single core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But the whole FX-XXXX is a bad idea. People will learn that FX is a processor but they won't learn which one to get. Where I work, when people talk about processors they just say i3, i5 or i7. People really don't care which i5 it is as long it's an i5. Cause they know that an i5 is good enough. Calling all bulldozers for just FX will make people confused.

---

Honestly I think BD is targeted against i7, lliano will take on against i5&i3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

i3 vs FX
i5 vs FX
i7 vs FX

See the difference?
The four digit numbers is nothing people care about. As I said, when people talk about intel CPUs the usually just say i5 or i7. Customers understand that i7 is the best one and so on. If you start talking about FX 4650 vs. FX 6450 people will be confused. People care about series, like i5, Core 2, Phenom II, Sempron. Not about modelnumbers like 940BE or E6400.
A4 and A8 is simple.

---

that would be true if AMD only called it FX. but they will have # afterwards to show the difference. Say for example we were talking CPUs and you told me the new i8 will spank the new FX 8000's. You wouldn't need to state FX 8123

unless I am missing something on the naming..

First off, english isn't my native language and im pretty drunk at the moment. Please have some understanding for my unusually bad english.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

Intel has more numbers too, Its
->Intel Core i7 990X for example
So
->AMD FX8xxx

is different how ?
Besides, this debacle is kinda pointles we have no confirmed model designation, not even ONE :-)

---

But people outside the enthusiast community just say i7 or i5, the numbers afterwards are to complex or to confusing. So it would be i7 vs. FX. People won't care enough to realize the difference between FX 4800 and FX 6400. People don't memorize 4 digit numbers. The last three numbers will take the focus away from the first one enough to make people not memorize the series.

As I said earlier. People remember series, like i7, i5n A8 and A6. Not modelnumbers like FX 6450.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin

So the possibility of:

FX4-xx
FX6-xx
FX8-xx

is out of your world and can never exsist?
And again i5 is stupid as it both holds quad and dual cores, and i dont think amd will be any better tho. We've already seen the naming of the first fuzion parts brazos, wich are: C30/50 and E-240/350 in wich both series contains single and dual cores wich is just stupid. The E-series should have both been dual cores and C single core.

---

That wasn't one of the alternatives that I was arguing against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechanical Man

Honestly I think BD is targeted against i7, lliano will take on against i5&i3.

---

It looks like there will be 2, 3 and 4 module Bulldozers, maybe even one single module.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thematrixhazune

that would be true if AMD only called it FX. but they will have # afterwards to show the difference. Say for example we were talking CPUs and you told me the new i8 will spank the new FX 8000's. You wouldn't need to state FX 8123

unless I am missing something on the naming..

---

People will miss the first digit in the 8123 number. People won't remember if the 8 is part of a more complex number. Do you think ordinary people would remember ior even realize the difference between intels series if they were named Core i 5560 or Core i 7990X. Core i5 and Core i7 is much simpler and easier to remember.


I once again apologize for any spelling errors. English isn't my native language, it's late friday evening and Im drunk. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

Its the same as iX ,its pretty much identical :-).

i-X
FX-X

Besides, most i5`s are only dual core, which kinda makes your coworkers kinda moronic.

---

thats a pretty sad statement = / , Whats wrong with dual cores ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

i3 vs FX
i5 vs FX
i7 vs FX

See the difference?
The four digit numbers is nothing people care about. As I said, when people talk about intel CPUs the usually just say i5 or i7. Customers understand that i7 is the best one and so on. If you start talking about FX 4650 vs. FX 6450 people will be confused. People care about series, like i5, Core 2, Phenom II, Sempron. Not about modelnumbers like 940BE or E6400.
A4 and A8 is simple.

---

+1, agree with you. Most of the people only talks about i3 or i5 etc
they won't care if i5 dual core or quad core part. Until they bought it, discuss with IT savvy friends and found out...lolz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV666

Its the same as iX ,its pretty much identical :-).

i-X
FX-X

Besides, most i5`s are only dual core, which kinda makes your coworkers kinda moronic.

---

Even most mobile i7s are dual core.

I remember when Intel introduced it, it was confusing, but now it seems everyone is use to it.
I am sure the same thing will happen with AMDs FX / A / E line, the nice outcome for AMD is that you can (hopefully) easily tell if its a 2/3/4/6/8 core, whereas for Intel you sometimes have to look it up on some spec table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

old architecture is 3 ALU/AGU pipelines which are shared. New architecture is 2 ALU + 2 AGU, all dedicated.

---

HMm no ...
If you mean "shared" in the sense like Bulldozer's Decoder is shared between two INT clusters, then your statement ist wrong.

These pipelines are there since the good old AMD K7 days, they consist of a pair: one AGU for adress generation and one ALU for any other, normal INT calculations.

Nothing is shared between those two pipeline. Some may count the scheduler, but that one is shared even to a higher degree in Bulldozer, too.

However, sharing in that context is a good thing, the unified scheduler is more flexible in assigning ALU and AGU Ops to the ALU/AGU pipelines. Nevertheless the theoretical, maximum throughput of Bulldozer is only 2AGU+2ALU ops per clock, whereas a K10 could issue 3+3 in the best case.

Because of the better efficiency, Bulldozer might still have the higher throughput in reality, but the 3 against 4 pipeline picture is still wrong from a technically point of view.

See also here:
http://www.chip-architect.org/news/O...teger_Core.jpg
http://chip-architect.com/news/2003_...it_Core.html#1

(ALUs 0,1,2 and AGUs 0,1,2 are clearly visible, they are not one big shared entity)

*sorry i was wrong*