http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...tml#discussion
I wonder what they have up their sleeve.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...tml#discussion
I wonder what they have up their sleeve.
I like AMD I prefer AMD but they are emphasizing multithreaded improvements alittle too much.
I really hope they got something much better in ops/clock/core performance coming.
Exactly what I was thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
All their talk about multithreaded performance makes me doubt its singlethreaded performance.
august... that's still quite a ways away. after they divulge info about it, then it'll still be some time before the launch. gosh i really hate playing the waiting game lol
So this is just an announcement of the announcement? :p
We have said many times that single threaded performance will be higher than current systems. Don't expect benchmarks until launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
But as we all move forward into 2011 and beyond, single threaded performance will become less relative as platforms get higher core counts and applications are written to expect 4+ cores as a minimum.
With both intel and AMD driving to higher core counts, expect software developers to find more ways to take advantage of those resources and expect them to rely less on clock speed. That trend has been happening already and it will only increase over time.
The problem that AMD is facing currently is not how many cores they can squeeze onto a chip, but how much performance they can get out of those cores. I mean it's taken 6 cores @ 3.2Ghz to match Intel's i7 w/ 4 cores/8 threads @ 2.6-2.8Ghz. That's rough.
Of course we want more cores, but there's got to be some processing power behind each of those cores, and intel is running away with it in brute force. Hopefully AMD's bulldozer will exceed i7 performance per clock. If it doesn't, I find it hard to believe that it will be fully competitive in its first generation. AMD will be playing the pricing game again instead of the performance game.
Its good thing to be enthusiast but at some point you have to realize that most people wont feel the difference in their normal everyday tasks between quad core processor from intel or amd
its no right man x6 1090T is simillary to i7 965 3 GHz in performance. So, 6 real cores or 8 virtual cores :rofl: ? In render + encoding(Cinema studio, POV-RAY and high encoding- 4 and more videos in real time) is overall Thuban better. And look at price :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
There is no doubt that Zambezi will outperform Phenom II in singlethreaded applications, but will it be competitive? Higher performance than current processors from AMD is not the same thing as higher performance than 2011 Intel processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
And you are a server dude, we aren't. Even if games can use up to four cores, or even more, it's the singlethreaded performance that is the most important part. And that's how it's going to be for a long time.
How's Thuban 1090T better in price/performance when it loses in majority of tests to low end Core i7? You can always choose some highly multithreaded apps (that the average user has no idea about, ie. Cinema studio, POV-RAY, etc.) to try to skew your argument, but higher ipc trumps frequency/cores in every other scenario, including gaming, encoding, and even in some multithreading scenarios. The all-round better chip is clearly budget i7, with it's robust power-saving features. Thuban is only useful for some specific apps, and even there the difference is negligible to budget i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
No, it's not an announcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
They've just showed up in this program, that's all. http://www.hotchips.org/program/conference-day-two/
lol, man, i reading all reviews Thuban think (im reading about 40 reviews to every desktop CPU product) . Some reviews was better, some was very bad (test method choice). We talking about Thuban vs Bloomfield. Bloomfield is much higher powerconsumption. Thuban is in it a bit lower than Phenoms Quadcores! And this is impressive. Watch example at pracitce review at lostcircuits.
Most users buy not hexacores for internet ,-). This segment is for overclokcers, for enthusiasts and working in 3D/video. Its sooo simply.
I guess things work differently in AMD dream land.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=47
And you keep laughing but it takes AMD six real cores to match Intel's "fake" cores right? :rofl:
...
Anand must be an Intel pumper. ;)
say what you want AMD, but i want to see bench marks cuz' you've broken my heart before!
Buy a 6 core, it will get faster over time, as software becomes more and more multi-threaded...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Windows7 (64bit OS) is still not mainstream. Once it is, you will see developers switch to using 64 bit apps and multi-threading. The hardware is ahead of the software, so none of what you say matters in the immediate future.
CPU's overclock themselves now, if using less cores. Unless you have a specific purpose buying a CPU/platform is about features.
Anandtech is not middle of world ;). U read maybe 1-5 review, i read 40. TRy example encoding videos 6x in the same time and u will see diference.:) Now im in work, but later at home, can u send PM with reviews. Definetely, x6 1090T is in real multi thread aplication compared with i7 965 +-.PS: games are ok, but its not optimalized for more than quadcores (i mean not 10% load at others cores, its nothing). Watch in games at x4 965 and x6 1090T. 965 BE will better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
No it isnot. It is shifting fast now that DX11 is out. All development environments and languages focus on parallel execution and are getting more support for parallel development.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Guys, what's this obsession with IPC? There is no use in having a 50% higher IPC if your competition can clock their cores at more than double the frequency of your cores while still use the same amount of power as your cores. It's about the architecture as a whole, that's amount of threads per chip, IPC per thread and clock frequency. This all has to stay within a certain power envelope and the chip should not be too big.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
We have absolutely no idea how Bulldozer will turn out. It might even completely surprise us by having a lower IPC than Phenom II, but running at a lot higher frequency while still consuming less power than whatever Intel has on the market when Bulldozer launches. The end result would be higher per thread performance, while actually having lower IPC and no sacrifices in power consumption. I'm not saying that Bulldozer will be anything like that, but you guys just seem to be too focused on IPC and IPC is only part of the solution.
Another thread about AMD versus Intel, just what I needed! Thanks guys! You're awesome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
amd spent more then 5 years designing the chip from the ground up .... yes it will be more then competitive....
IPC is Intel's weapon right now, so it can't be ignored in any honest debate, especially since a quad-core 2.66 GHZ part is beating a hexa-core 3.2GHZ part. The point is moot anyways since the competitor product has higher ipc and can overclock even better with non-extreme cooling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
And what if AMD could clock an 8 core (4 modules) Bulldozer at 5 GHz while only consuming 95 Watts? And it does this while having about 95% of the IPC of AMD's current Phenom II chips. That's what I'm getting at. IPC is only part of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
I'm not claiming that Bulldozer will be anything like that, just that there's more than just IPC to getting great single threaded performance.
No, Intel's weapon is SMT.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
IPC drives SMT.Quote:
Originally Posted by superrugal