I don't think so, it would hold back execution way too much. There is a buffer here called coalescing cache, which seems to be disabled here.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...2610181333&p=9To alleviate the write-through bandwidth requirements on the L2, each Bulldozer module includes a write coalescing cache (WCC), which is considered part of the L2. At present, AMD has not disclosed the size and associativity of the WCC, although it is probably quite small. Stores from both L1D caches go through the WCC, where they are buffered and coalesced. The purpose of the WCC is to reduce the number of writes to the L2 cache, by taking advantage of both spatial and temporal locality between stores. For example, a memcpy() routine might clear a cache line with four 128-bit stores, the WCC would coalesce these stores together and only write out once to the L2 cache.
I know that article since David wrote it. The buffer is nice, but it is just a buffer not a part of L1. It just helps to bundle the data in bigger chunks thus some accesses to the L2 can be avoided, nevertheless, you write into the L2.
Or to quote David:
The purpose of the WCC is to reduce the number of writes to the L2 cache,each Bulldozer module includes a write coalescing cache (WCC), which is considered part of the L2
As quoted by LowRun......"So, we are one week past AMD's worst case scenario for BD's availability but they don't feel like communicating about the delay, I suppose AMD must be removed from the reliable sources list for AMD's products launch dates"
i'd like to ask something to those who actually put their hands on a real bd: in AIDA64, or Everest or whatever, the cpu is recognized as OctalCore, wih an "L"? 'cause i saw that in the screens from coolaler, and along with results and test methodology ( ddr3-1333, lawl) that OctalCore didn't sound right either... maybe it's just me and my poor understanding of how greek prefixes get transcribed in english, but if thuban is a hexa-core, bd should be octa, right?
As far as i understand, i HAVEN'T called him a liar yet, because my previous comment is a conditional one. But perhaps i gave the wrong impression, i certainly don't think he is one now, things are not official, i don't consider those leaks legitimate.
BUT, i certainly want to hold him accountable for what he has informed us in the past, because out of that assurance, we have bash many supposedly Intel shills around here. I know i did, and if they actually come out right, i will feel kinda guilty, my self conscious can't justify that.
And YES, i'm spursindonesia from Spurstalk too, i've been a Spurs fan for quite sometime, since mid 90's era. So, which Kori's sheep are you ? I'm one of his old sheep, i know her since early 2000's when we were still in SpursReport forum, hehehe.
Rig:
Intel Core 2 Quad 9400 @4.0 GHz watercooled
AMD Radeon HD 5850 @950 MHz
4 GB Adata Vitesta
DFI LanParty X38
Creative XFi
2 WDC black 640 GB RAID 0, 2 WDC caviar 1.5 GB
Silverstone 700 w
Thermaltake Kandalf
24" Samsung LCD TV full HD
people are not banned for their opinion, they are banned for how they say it
no apology will be needed if somehow IPC is lower
2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case
Why cant we find someone who has a Interlagos and bench it at the same speed as a Mangy Cores. From there it should be simple math to find out the IPC difference. I know there are people on here with Mangy Cores, you mean to say NO ONE has an Interlagos? They are already launched and shipping so that means NDA is up on them. Why can we get numbers that way?
Rig 1:
ASUS P8Z77-V
Intel i5 3570K @ 4.75GHz
16GB of Team Xtreme DDR-2666 RAM (11-13-13-35-2T)
Nvidia GTX 670 4GB SLI
Rig 2:
Asus Sabertooth 990FX
AMD FX-8350 @ 5.6GHz
16GB of Mushkin DDR-1866 RAM (8-9-8-26-1T)
AMD 6950 with 6970 bios flash
Yamakasi Catleap 2B overclocked to 120Hz refresh rate
Audio-GD FUN DAC unit w/ AD797BRZ opamps
Sennheiser PC350 headset w/ hero mod
The date of the launch of the opteron interlagos is the 26 september so i suppose that it is still under NDA :
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...er_Report.html
Just search for OS6272WKTGGGU or OS6276WKTGGGU, they're listed in many places, but not in stock yet.
Official launch date for the server part is Q4.
Me too.
I would think it is clocked much higher than the rest of the L2. The higher the L1 throughput is the less it holds back execution. So, L1 accesses needs to be as fast as reasonably possible. The ~22 GB/s of (apparent) L1 Write is roughly 1/6 only of the ~130 GB/s of L1 Read... So, you can store the results of a computation 1/6 the speed of reading your datas. True, the amount of initial datas are usually bigger than of the results, but the ratio is not always >= 1:6. There can even be more results than initial datas.The buffer is nice, but it is just a buffer not a part of L1. It just helps to bundle the data in bigger chunks thus some accesses to the L2 can be avoided, nevertheless, you write into the L2.
Of course, it all depends on the size of this WCC, as well, so that how often we running out of it. I hope it's reasonably sized. (The rather low number in AIDA64 could also come from that it writes 64KB [size of L1D], while the WCC is certainly lesser.)
Last edited by dess; 09-20-2011 at 12:45 PM.
demonkevy666 Isn't NB affecting just the main memory? Maybe it affects L3 but I don't think L2 is at that speed, it should be at cpu frequency as was L2 in K10.
It does have a buffer so they are not stuck by the write speed. And the l1 write is correct because you expect it to be in the facinity of the l2cache. However the l2cache speed is just incorrect (wether it is a hardware issue or an Aida64support issue). One would expect the l2cache to reach at least 50-80Gb/s (it should be a higher latency with higher bandwidth construction compared to the current x6 lineup.... but that one has a lower latency, a lower frequency with higher bandwidth.).
These results seem more like a read/write through up to the memory. So either a hardware or an Aida64 software issue.
Last edited by flyck; 09-20-2011 at 10:21 PM.
flyck If its a hardware issue and they can fix it then the performance should noticeably improve and it would explain the mediocre performance until now.
edit: on the Aida64 product page it says its fully optimized for BD so I would think its a hardware issue or maybe this is the throttled thing in bios chew* mentioned.
Last edited by TESKATLIPOKA; 09-20-2011 at 11:19 PM.
But if it is a hardware issue/problem then probably they need another stepping, aren't they? And that is more (too much) time for the final/retail revision, somewhere in december it could be out..oh man . I really hope that this cache problems can be fixed through software,bios etc.
Maybe the performance shown in the leaked benches (that are lower than what we would expect) is due to a bug, and fixing it is causing further delays?
But AMDs own benchmarks they showed behind closed doors hinted something wrong, they made GPU limited gaming benchmarks and in handpicked benchmarks they were only 20% faster than a unnamed i5 quad core, with an octa core! If even AMDs own benchmarks show lousy performance then it can’t be something that will be fixed until release, they wouldn’t bench on old defective chips from this spring. They would bench on the new release chips. They wouldn’t use defective BIOSes so that’s ruled out too.
from a chinese site (zol)
Bulldozer summary of recent relevant information Part3 (9.20 update B2 stepping of the BUG)
http://translate.google.com.hk/trans...11_100864.html
Confirmed fraud lol
orig. chi1) OBR all the results are released - this hands on a B0 stepping of the chip, and he measured success whether it is AMD K10.5, or Intel SNB / Nehalem there results in an anomalous situation. Furthermore, also admitted forging his own achievements.
2) AMD AM3 + slot will continue to be used for compatibility with the next generation of Bulldozer. http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100645.html
3) DonanimHaber has released FX-8130P ES (B0) results. http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/10/11_99888.html
http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100864.html
I corrected your post. The demo was to show they have a working product that is competitive not to show how it performs.
Who said is a bug or is defective? might as wel be deliberatly forgot an important setting thats affects performance. We really don't know, we do know the hardware is running though.. The leaks go from really bad to bad. All the leaks now indicate there is abolsutely no reason to bring out the FX8, let alone the FX6 and FX4 whom have no justice to exist at all according to these results. So yeah, wait before making a verdict is still in order. At this time we can only guess about the real performance. We can make our bets on the leaked performance of the samples and try to determine if there is something wrong or if it is going to be the same when they release.
-Boris- what they tested was B2F and now we have B2G and who knows which Agesa code they had, because I saw the latest AGESA only with Asrock bios.
flyck nice correction
Last edited by TESKATLIPOKA; 09-21-2011 at 01:27 AM.
Bookmarks