Bulldoze that Sandy Bridge

[demonkevy666]

Let's take a look at what we do know about bulldozer

Shared L1 instruction cache for two cores in one module (no size yet Although I could go with 128Kbytes for speculation)
separate L1 data cache 16 Kbytes per core
2Mbs L2 cache shared for two cores in one module.
8Mbs of 2400mhz L3 cache
1866mhz memory
SSSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 AVX I'm sure more I didn't list

I think it would have less missed IPC then phenom II.
don't know if L1/L2 cache in Exclusive or inclusive type yet.

sandybridge doesn't worry me at all, it's like K8<K10/K10.5 really with a few bonuses.

[445533]

By labelling them FX, I assume that they might be coming out with a dual cpu platform for enthusiasts. Like Quad FX?

[Oese]

I think no. Quad FX was a try to get back the "FX" Performance crown just using 2 processors because one didnt do it. It was a flop. I dont think they will try that again.

In Socket 939 and earlier times, FX was just the highest clocked Athlon, which indeed was the fastest gaming processor on the market those times. I hope they will revive that spirit again (which is very likely, even if its going to be slightly less fast then some intel when it comes out..)

[JF-AMD]

Let's take a look at what we do know about bulldozer

Shared L1 instruction cache for two cores in one module (no size yet Although I could go with 128Kbytes for speculation)
separate L1 data cache 16 Kbytes per core
2Mbs L2 cache shared for two cores in one module.
8Mbs of 2400mhz L3 cache
1866mhz memory
SSSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 AVX I'm sure more I didn't list

I think it would have less missed IPC then phenom II.
don't know if L1/L2 cache in Exclusive or inclusive type yet.

sandybridge doesn't worry me at all, it's like K8<K10/K10.5 really with a few bonuses.

Cache is exclusive.

IPC will be higher.

We have not said anything on memory other than 1600MHz on server.

[445533]

Cache is exclusive.

IPC will be higher.

We have not said anything on memory other than 1600MHz on server.

Will there ever be an enthusiast platform, like the Quad FX or would you recommend going to socket C32 or G34 for multiple CPU?

[JF-AMD]

There will not be a dual socket client product. Server products are not designed to be overclocked.

The dual socket client market, at its peak, was .8% of the client market. Then it fell to .4% of the market. I have no idea where it is today, but with 6 and soon, 8 cores available, the need for dual socket is practically non-existent. It was bigger when two dual cores got you to four total cores.

[demonkevy666]

Cache is exclusive.

IPC will be higher.

We have not said anything on memory other than 1600MHz on server.

I think you missed read what I wrote.

as I said less missed IPC then phenom II which I meet would be Higher IPC then phenom II.

yes I know you work with Sever not client.

Desktop roadmaps showed 1866mhz a while a ago.

you must be getting annoyed with everyone saying it only has 12.5% over current cores.

I know I am and I don't even work for amd lol

[Movieman]

There will not be a dual socket client product. Server products are not designed to be overclocked.

The dual socket client market, at its peak, was .8% of the client market. Then it fell to .4% of the market. I have no idea where it is today, but with 6 and soon, 8 cores available, the need for dual socket is practically non-existent. It was bigger when two dual cores got you to four total cores.

( Looks around the house and sees 4 dual socket machines)
I won't argue your numbers but for some of us the dualies present some real world advantages.
1)They are electrically more efficient for the work done than the singles
2) The boards are generally much better built and last longer
I have SM boards that are up to 10 years old and still function as they did on day one
3) Space: I can get X amount of work done in a smaller footprint than if I went to single socket boards.
4) They have more E-PEEN!

Number 1+2 are the key to me.
Inital cost is heavier but to me knowing that I'm cutting my electrical costs EVERY day for the 2-3 years between upgrades makes my decisions.
In this day of 16 cents per KW/H it is the smart move.
The added initial cost is recovered over that timeframe and the dependability factor means no downtime form RMA's and such.
Since 2003 when I first went to a dualie ( SM X5DAE) I've never had an issue with a board.

[jeremyshaw]

( Looks around the house and sees 4 dual socket machines)
I won't argue your numbers but for some of us the dualies present some real world advantages.
1)They are electrically more efficient for the work done than the singles
2) The boards are generally much better built and last longer
I have SM boards that are up to 10 years old and still function as they did on day one
3) Space: I can get X amount of work done in a smaller footprint than if I went to single socket boards.
4) They have more E-PEEN!

Number 1+2 are the key to me.
Inital cost is heavier but to me knowing that I'm cutting my electrical costs EVERY day for the 2-3 years between upgrades makes my decisions.
In this day of 16 cents per KW/H it is the smart move.
The added initial cost is recovered over that timeframe and the dependability factor means no downtime form RMA's and such.
Since 2003 when I first went to a dualie ( SM X5DAE) I've never had an issue with a board.

Lol, JF-AMD already went through the same thing with me on the [H] forums. I think my last shot was at the feasibility of C32, since it seemed like half a G34 to me (so why not get 1 G34, lol), but he mentioned company research already showed there was sufficient interest with large enough orders to allow devoting precious company engineering (and by relation, marketing - and no, these aren't the pretty artwork guys) resources over to this. Same thing for enthusiast dual socket. Research in this direction, however, pointed to a very minority market share and interest overall to even bother. I never got a clear answer whether is was even possible for a 3rd party to build an OCable G34 board or something, but I never directly asked that question, either.

He likes mentioning the Quad FX issue, but IMO, back then, going from dual to quad was already a given for the next gen. But nowadays, going from 12-->24 isn't going to be as quick, nor likely (just IMO). While I don't think AMD should devote resources over to this (Intel doesn't, after all), I do hope it's actually possible to BCLK OC an Opty through a 3rd party (looking at Sapphire's snab of eVGA's mobo team, lol).

[Movieman]

Lol, JF-AMD already went through the same thing with me on the [H] forums. I think my last shot was at the feasibility of C32, since it seemed like half a G34 to me (so why not get 1 G34, lol), but he mentioned company research already showed there was sufficient interest with large enough orders to allow devoting precious company engineering (and by relation, marketing - and no, these aren't the pretty artwork guys) resources over to this. Same thing for enthusiast dual socket. Research in this direction, however, pointed to a very minority market share and interest overall to even bother. I never got a clear answer whether is was even possible for a 3rd party to build an OCable G34 board or something, but I never directly asked that question, either.

He likes mentioning the Quad FX issue, but IMO, back then, going from dual to quad was already a given for the next gen. But nowadays, going from 12-->24 isn't going to be as quick, nor likely (just IMO). While I don't think AMD should devote resources over to this (Intel doesn't, after all), I do hope it's actually possible to BCLK OC an Opty through a 3rd party (looking at Sapphire's snab of eVGA's mobo team, lol).

Yea, John's a good guy and well intentioned but we differ on our opinions in this.That's ok, I don't take this stuff personal.
Back with the dual FX boards the timing was wrong and so wasnt the product.
Just too much heat to deal with from what I saw at the time.
We had a guy on WCG build one and to be honest he wasn't happy with the results.
The unfortunate part is that if a company does try something one time and it fails they are predisposed to never try that again and I can't argue with that thinking BUT I think one has to look at the advances that have been made and see it in todays technology.
Now I have a dual socket Asus KGPE-D16 with 2-6168 MC chips( 24 cores total) that runs 100% load 24/7 since last April I think and is as solid a machine as one could ask for. ZERO downtime, loaded temps at app 41C in a 72F room in a open case with the Dynatron A6 HS( best available at the time)
Would I like to see if it could OC?
You better beleive I would and have tried all that I can do find a way to OC it but no luck.
I have gotten to the mental point that it is what it is and will have to stay that way for it's lifespan.

[JF-AMD]

I never got a clear answer whether is was even possible for a 3rd party to build an OCable G34 board or something, but I never directly asked that question, either.

Anyone can build anything that they want. However the processor will never have unlocked multipliers.

If the guy who would pick up a grand per proc on a 2P client system says there isn't enough of a market to be financially viable, what would make a motherboard manufacturer want to build a board in order to capture an even smaller share of the revenue per system?

The market just isn't there.

[AlleyViper]

In Socket 939 and earlier times, FX was just the highest clocked Athlon, which indeed was the fastest gaming processor on the market those times. I hope they will revive that spirit again (which is very likely, even if its going to be slightly less fast then some intel when it comes out..)

For some AMD trivia, before socket 939 the FX wasn't in a mainstream plattform. IIRC the FX-51 debuted as a socket 940 part along the 754 introduction, requiring buffered RAM like an opteron. For a short time it was 200MHz faster than the 754 flagship.

[445533]

The dual socket client market, at its peak, was .8% of the client market. Then it fell to .4% of the market.

If the parts are not available of course the market will be small. How can you buy something that doesn't exist?

I have no idea where it is today, but with 6 and soon, 8 cores available, the need for dual socket is practically non-existent. It was bigger when two dual cores got you to four total cores.

There are plenty of enthusiasts and professionals that need more power than a 1 socket system can provide. I can already think of gamers and the artists at CGSociety off the top of my head.

The Quad FX platform sucked in performance, value, heat output, power consumption... etc. Of course it didn't take off, was it supposed to?

You're dealing with enthusiasts, people who research their products beforehand. We don't buy poor performing products.



I like the C32 platform and hopefully that will take off. Maybe in the future we can see a C32-like platfrom with more enthusiast features. Crossfire, SLi, overclocking... etc.

[ChanceCoats123]

If the chips put up good numbers, I see no reason for EVGA not to make an Amd version of the SR-2.

[Sn0wm@n]

If the parts are not available of course the market will be small. How can you buy something that doesn't exist?



There are plenty of enthusiasts and professionals that need more power than a 1 socket system can provide. I can already think of gamers and the artists at CGSociety off the top of my head.

The Quad FX platform sucked in performance, value, heat output, power consumption... etc. Of course it didn't take off, was it supposed to?

You're dealing with enthusiasts, people who research their products beforehand. We don't buy poor performing products.



I like the C32 platform and hopefully that will take off. Maybe in the future we can see a C32-like platfrom with more enthusiast features. Crossfire, SLi, overclocking... etc.

sorry but your only thinking for yourself there ... amd is thinking for the good of the investors ... and the stock holders ... nothing else .. and if amd says the market is too small to even think of investing into client side workstation ... then its for the best .. id want me some dually who oc .. but then again it wont happen soon ...

and the few people that need more then 1 socket they allready have 2 or 4 socket systems ... so ???

[richierich]

JF, convince me to cancel my i5-2500k order

[jeremyshaw]

If the chips put up good numbers, I see no reason for EVGA not to make an Amd version of the SR-2.

eVGA's mobo team left for the Sapphire pastures. Root for sapphire to deliver!!

JF, convince me to cancel my i5-2500k order

"...different markets..."

^^what I would say.

[richierich]

No, I want JF to convince me to cancel my 2500k order by showing me something (I'm not part of the dual-socket crowd, I'm talking about mainstream Bulldozer). Throw me a bone willya JF? lol.

[Sn0wm@n]

No, I want JF to convince me to cancel my 2500k order by showing me something (I'm not part of the dual-socket crowd, I'm talking about mainstream Bulldozer). Throw me a bone willya JF? lol.

he clearly said amd wont show benchmark before official launch ... and it wont change ....

[richierich]

I know sn0wm@n, I'm joking. Well I'm most likely going to play with a 2500k until AMD releases BD, and if BD disappoints, well I'll just have to keep waiting until AMD releases something revolutionary.

[jeremyshaw]

Anyone can build anything that they want. However the processor will never have unlocked multipliers.

If the guy who would pick up a grand per proc on a 2P client system says there isn't enough of a market to be financially viable, what would make a motherboard manufacturer want to build a board in order to capture an even smaller share of the revenue per system?

The market just isn't there.

Ah, thank you very much

See, I'm not too bright, and rather dim, so I interpreted one of your other messages as "well not allow our partners to build OCable "entusiast" Opteron mobos"


^^ good example of me o.0

[Sn0wm@n]

I know sn0wm@n, I'm joking. Well I'm most likely going to play with a 2500k until AMD releases BD, and if BD disappoints, well I'll just have to keep waiting until AMD releases something revolutionary.

gotcha!!!


i doubt bulldozer would disapoint .. but then again gotta be prepared for everything i guess

[445533]

sorry but your only thinking for yourself there ... amd is thinking for the good of the investors ... and the stock holders ... nothing else .. and if amd says the market is too small to even think of investing into client side workstation ... then its for the best .. id want me some dually who oc .. but then again it wont happen soon ...

And look how good that turned out right? LOL.

[JF-AMD]

If the parts are not available of course the market will be small. How can you buy something that doesn't exist?



There are plenty of enthusiasts and professionals that need more power than a 1 socket system can provide. I can already think of gamers and the artists at CGSociety off the top of my head.

The Quad FX platform sucked in performance, value, heat output, power consumption... etc. Of course it didn't take off, was it supposed to?

You're dealing with enthusiasts, people who research their products beforehand. We don't buy poor performing products.



I like the C32 platform and hopefully that will take off. Maybe in the future we can see a C32-like platfrom with more enthusiast features. Crossfire, SLi, overclocking... etc.

So, you are saying it is a good idea for a company to spend $5M in order to bring in a million in revenue?

The problem is not just the small size of the market and the fact that you will lose money. The real problem is that in spending the money to lose money you are bypassing the opportunity to spend the money and MAKE money. The $5M you invest to bring in a million in revenue would be better spent focusing on a product that can bring in $10M or $20M, right?

Given the choice between losing a few million and making a profit, where do you think a company should invest?

[JF-AMD]

No, I want JF to convince me to cancel my 2500k order by showing me something (I'm not part of the dual-socket crowd, I'm talking about mainstream Bulldozer). Throw me a bone willya JF? lol.

The best way to convince you would be to let you buy it and then face buyers remorse later, right