AMD to Disclose Details About Bulldozer Micro-Architecture in August

[informal]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2879/3

A 16 core (8 modules) Bulldozer based CPU is 60 to 80% faster than a 12 core Magny Cours in integer performance when using SPECInt_rate as a benchmark according to Anandtech.

Also keep in mind that terrace based all of his math on an old,vague chart that has fading bars....

[terrace215]

Also keep in mind that terrace based all of his math on an old,vague chart that has fading bars....

Well, I mean, what can I say? It is AMD's own chart from 6 months back.

I'll stick with AMD's official figures over Johan's tidbits, especially when the latter date (and source) from the SAME time of the "5% extra die size for 80% performance gain" nonsense that was later clarified.

Unless JF-AMD wants to reiterate any performance claim that is different from what that AMD slide shows?

JF, is Interlagos really 60-80% better than MC (12-core) in specInt_rate, despite the AMD slide showing "integer performance" is only 24-33% better?

Or was your comment to Johan in error?

[informal]

Well, I mean, what can I say? It is AMD's own chart from 6 months back.

I'll stick with AMD's official figures over Johan's tidbits, especially when they date (and source) from the time of the "5% extra die size for 80% performance gain" nonsense that was later "clarified".

You can stick with whatever you like,but if it ends up like Johan said(or even better ) ,it won't matter. JF already stated that the "jump" will be very similar if not better to what we have got with Istanbul->MC transition.

[haylui]

You can stick with whatever you like,but if it ends up like Johan said(or even better ) ,it won't matter. JF already stated that the "jump" will be very similar if not better to what we have got with Istanbul->MC transition.

core to core performance, how much does MC gains over Istanbul?
I thought both were K10.5 micro-architecture?

[terrace215]

You can stick with whatever you like,but if it ends up like Johan said(or even better ) ,it won't matter. JF already stated that the "jump" will be very similar if not better to what we have got with Istanbul->MC transition.

You know, I've been looking more at that chart from AMD.

I've got a very close fit for the Y-axis:

**** The base results for specInt_rate and specFP_rate, for 2-socket systems with the noted processors, divided by 10. ****

Look them up. They are dead on for the 2009 "2435 Istanbul 2-socket", and very close for 2008 and 2007 as well.

Now, you say, but 2010, MC is better than this: the chart would give:

290 for int_rate (base), 280 for fp_rate for a 2-socket 2.3 MC system.

When we look we find: 309 int, 290 fp.

But recall that JF likes to say that they over-delivered with MC vs what was promised... so I think this is ok.

If I got it right, this chart from AMD calls for

=================================
Interlagos top-bin 2-socket system:

SpecInt_rate(base): 360-390
SpecFP_rate(base): 400-430

(lower numbers are where the fade starts, upper is end of bar)

=================================

The upper end would amount to an FP improvement of 48% (thank you, AVX), and integer is 390/309 = 26%.

Note that per-core, this is 148/133 = 11% better SpecFP_rate, but about 5% worse on SpecInt_rate.

It would make sense that these charts would be some form of SpecInt/FP rates, and base is easier to project than peak, and it must be 2-socket (or 1, but that doesn't make much sense) systems from the 2xx initial parts chosen.


--------------------

Anyhow, given that I now think this chart is giving spectInt/FP_rate projections, the Johan specInt_rate tidbit from JF is completely at odds with this chart, and as they were both put out at the same time... gotta think the chart stands unless JF wants to (re-)claim otherwise.