Amd Excavator Details - May Bring Dramatic performance increase

[Ace123]

This article is making some assumptions, but as information comes in, I will update this thread accordingly
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...Increases.html

AMD Excavator?s AVX2 Support Hints at New FPU

As Advanced Micro Devices is preparing to launch its next-generation microprocessors with Steamroller high-performance x86 cores, enthusiasts are revealing secrets about its fourth-generation Bulldozer core code-named Excavator. As it appears, that processing engine will support 256-bit AVX2 floating point instructions, which may mean that it will feature rather revolutionary changes from existing Bulldozer cores.

[xVeinx]

A redesigned FPU would be nice. It's anyone's guess as to how much performance will be gained though. There is too little info regarding it to even speculate. Nice catch by the author, but hard to say much otherwise...

[AliG]

It would be pretty awesome if AMD managed to offer a significant speed boost while maintaining similar power consumption levels. I think Microsoft released Windows 8 a bit too early, but 8.1 is actually rather well done. I can totally see the tablet market taking off soon - which means potentially a lot of opportunity for AMD to try to become profitable

[tbone8ty]

regardless they need to see some type of growth in their computing solutions division.

first we need to see steamroller

then we can talk about excavator

[Iconyu]

It looks like they are keeping feature parity with Skylark, but Intel and AMD approached AVX in very different manners. With Sandybridge Intel just added the extra resources to be available as needed, so AVX instructions were processed only at the expense of extra wattage, while with Bulldozer AMD combined two 128bit units to process AVX instructions.

If both sides stay with the same method, then AMD will gain a lot of headway on AVX instructions, but AVX2 instructions will be a different matter. I was actually surprised when I saw the way AMD implemented AVX after the release of Intel's Conroe chips, it was obvious that Intel wouldn't release a new feature on a chip and have it only half powered like they did with their first Willamette chips and SSE.

I really hope AMD keep this in mind for AVX2.

[kromosto]

According to assumptions bulldozer was going to be awesome. Although i will follow this thread and i believe amd learned it's lesson still i wont get anything even with grain of salt.

Sent from my SM-N9000Q using Tapatalk

[spursindonesia]

According to assumptions bulldozer was going to be awesome. Although i will follow this thread and i believe amd learned it's lesson still i wont get anything even with grain of salt.

Sent from my SM-N9000Q using Tapatalk

Yeah, i am much much more pessimistic regarding AMD CPU products, but i certainly hope (read, pray) that they can pull it off this time around, they simply have to.

[vario]

Sadly, excavator isnt "this time around" but its the next next time around ,or a next time around at best ;-)

[ajaidev]

A FPU change would be great as it is there is a multi small core config heading towards AMD which might destroy this module philosophy.

[spursindonesia]

Sadly, excavator isnt "this time around" but its the next next time around ,or a next time around at best ;-)

I hear you bro, i hear you.

A FPU change would be great as it is there is a multi small core config heading towards AMD which might destroy this module philosophy.

Can you elaborate more about this, mate ? That seems interesting.

[vario]

I hear you bro, i hear you.



Can you elaborate more about this, mate ? That seems interesting.

I think he may be gettin at some moves by amd, ARM derived AMD server chips, many small cores in AMD`s consoles (X one PS4) ,and a NO to a either server or high end desktop steamrollers.
So only module chips left are going to be APUs from now on and mid range at best.AMD ARMs are confirmed, jaguar cores in consoles are confirmed, no server and desktop steamrollers kind of confirmed by a roadmap leaks.I may be pessimist and cynic ,but on the whole i think its not a smart move (excluding console jaguar chips, as it seems to be a good move).

[qcmadness]

Trust it when I see the real sample.

[PatRaceTin]

I will never expect "Dramatic increase" from AMD

[tbone8ty]

Their computing solutions unit is in the cross hairs of wallstreet. They can't afford a screw up

[BrowncoatGR]

I don't get all the drama about Bulldozer and especially Piledriver. Both are very good chips at multithreaded workloads. Their only serious drawback is power consumption and single-threaded/gaming performance. Both also have much better performance on Linux. So they are not as fast as the latest Intel chips, but they are faster than any Intel chips in their price range(aside from gaming).

[Sparky]

I will never expect "Dramatic increase" from AMD

They did it once years ago (Hammer). There is always a chance they could do it again, however slight it may be. I'm not holding my breath but it would be nice to see them give intel a surprise kick in the nads again Doing so can only benefit the consumer also.

[tbone8ty]

So they got 5ghz on 32nm...what could they get on 28nm?

[Tim]

I don't get all the drama about Bulldozer and especially Piledriver. Both are very good chips at multithreaded workloads. Their only serious drawback is power consumption and single-threaded/gaming performance. Both also have much better performance on Linux. So they are not as fast as the latest Intel chips, but they are faster than any Intel chips in their price range(aside from gaming).

I think the drama is because they are merely "ok" at multithreaded workloads. Single-threaded/gaming performance is so bad it makes you cry. On top of that, the vast majority of people on here remember very very well the glory days of Athlon XP and Athlon64 (FX), with some of the all time favorite CPUs. We want that back. I've had two Intel CPUs so far but before that 7 AMD CPUs.

[N19h7m4r3]

I think the drama is because they are merely "ok" at multithreaded workloads. Single-threaded/gaming performance is so bad it makes you cry. On top of that, the vast majority of people on here remember very very well the glory days of Athlon XP and Athlon64 (FX), with some of the all time favorite CPUs. We want that back. I've had two Intel CPUs so far but before that 7 AMD CPUs.

That about sum sit all up.

My Phenom II 940 BE is still running, and it's a good chip, but it pails in comparison against my Xeon W3680, which is still going very strong.

If AMD can bring something out like the good old Athlon 64( I still my socket 754 machine what works), I'll gladly buy it.
At the moment they just don't have the bang for buck like they use to.

[vario]

They did it once years ago (Hammer). There is always a chance they could do it again, however slight it may be. I'm not holding my breath but it would be nice to see them give intel a surprise kick in the nads again Doing so can only benefit the consumer also.

More pronounced was ATHLON , in K6-2 and III era, AMD got smacked in any serious workload ,with the exception when it was AMD optimized (3dnow) and very little software was, it was as bad or even worse than now. just when i was about to jump ship, they released the kraken, i mean athlon, then there were duron days when you could buy duron 600 overclock it to 1ghz or above and have pretty much highest performing chips power (officially highest ones were 1ghz athlon and PIIIs), then it got somewhat muddy with intels tualatins and not so great first XP`s , and AMD was back with thoroughbred B and bartons, then again things slowed down, and boom, hammertime ,i mean really, even phenom II`s were good honest chips , AMD did a netburst on us but they had nothing to fall back on like intel with their second R&D line.So its not like impossible, things is they need to do some hard engineering ,and not marketing and layoffs :-/.

Biggest FAIL of BD line is, that even today, so much much later, they are sometimes barely better than phenoms II! That should not happen, ever.

[i found nemo]

performance for price, amd wins.. performance per watt.. amd loses. but if you spend $100 more on an i7 you will mop the floor with amd/ tie it in some apps and lose horribly in others. IF amd can construct a fpu that is more efficient, it would be PHENOMinal.

[tajoh111]

performance for price, amd wins.. performance per watt.. amd loses. but if you spend $100 more on an i7 you will mop the floor with amd/ tie it in some apps and lose horribly in others. IF amd can construct a fpu that is more efficient, it would be PHENOMinal.

The problem is that performance per price when you take into account the whole systems, AMD quickly loses its performance for price advantage. What I mean by this is when you start buying ram, MB, harddrives, case and PS and add them to the system, the difference in in price may be 100 bucks or so in the most extreme case, but when its between a 800 dollar and 900 dollar system, that 30% difference or even 15 percent difference, that price just makes much more sense.

Same with laptops, but this difference is now atleast 30 percent and sometimes double. Some of AMD's sleek books are too expensive, when the intel equivalent is 100 dollars more and people don't care about gaming as much in a compact form factor. When you take the whole system into account, particularly with vendor built PCs, people are willing to pay the difference.

[Tim]

performance for price, amd wins..

I respectfully disagree with that one. I've had that same discussion with one of my friends days ago and when you actually look at the majority of benchmarks, it doesn't add up. At least when we compared his choice between a Intel Core i5-4670K and fx-8350. The fx was ?20 cheaper but the performance difference was disastrous in games and single threaded apps.

[vario]

I respectfully disagree with that one. I've had that same discussion with one of my friends days ago and when you actually look at the majority of benchmarks, it doesn't add up. At least when we compared his choice between a Intel Core i5-4670K and fx-8350. The fx was ?20 cheaper but the performance difference was disastrous in games and single threaded apps.

While on the whole i agree that intels a better idea for gaming.
I have to respectfully disagree for like 90% of people, FX is weak in gaming IF you use SLI/CF OR use Med/Low detail settings, in real life scenarios while using 1 GPU and taxing detail settings (as one would use) this discrepancy pretty much vanishes.
Theres one more thing to add, FX 8320 are an option ,and their even cheaper, and its certainly better sometimes to invest in GPU than CPU, but thats of course highly dependable on amount of $ for use.
At least thats the data ive seen.

[kromosto]

While on the whole i agree that intels a better idea for gaming.
I have to respectfully disagree for like 90% of people, FX is weak in gaming IF you use SLI/CF OR use Med/Low detail settings, in real life scenarios while using 1 GPU and taxing detail settings (as one would use) this discrepancy pretty much vanishes.
Theres one more thing to add, FX 8320 are an option ,and their even cheaper, and its certainly better sometimes to invest in GPU than CPU, but thats of course highly dependable on amount of $ for use.
At least thats the data ive seen.

Yes we build a system for my friend for gaming. Price was important and and it was not a big number so we go with 8320 with a better gpu.

If the money he aimed to spend is enough we surely have choosen intel but it was not. And this low or mid money customers represents most.

Sent from my SM-N9000Q using Tapatalk