AMD cuts to the core with 'Bulldozer' Opterons

[JF-AMD]

The differences between Istanbul and Magny Cours is none except that Magny Cours has a new socket.

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

[-Boris-]

"Greatly outperform" in any game(for real ?) at what settings?In real world gaming?Nice try though.

Try to read what I am saying. NOT in real world gaming, but in situations that aren't GPU-limited. Because these processors won't be GPU-limited 2014 in the same way. Just as a A64 4400+ bought 2006 isn't GPU limited with a 5770.
So, instead of reading your bench that says an Athlon II X2 can compete with a 980X, you do an ordinary game bench, where you measure the differences between the CPUs, not measure the GPU. And that way you know which CPU that is most likely to still have adequate performance 2014.

I say that if an i7 can outperform an Phenom II with 50% in the games we have today, it's much more likely to achieve playable FPS 2014. But if we do it your way, and limit them down to the same FPS in the games of today with underpowered GPU, we will be fooled into believing they have the same gaming performance.

Example:
In the year 2010, CPU A limits a game at 50FPS, CPU B limits the same game at 100FPS.
In the year 2014, CPU A limits a new game at 25FPS, CPU B limits the same game at 50FPS. CPU B is still good.
BUT, if we do the 2010 test with a GPU that limits the game at 30FPS, we won't see the difference, and will be disappointed when our CPU A proved to have a poor longevity.

And of course I know that you can't predict this exactly and that their relationship performance wise may change. But that's beside the point.
2004 my A64 ran just as fast as my friends P4, since we had the same GPU. But 2007, my old A64 was the only one that still performed good in games.

@Boris
take a look at steam hardware surveys and see how many gaming rigs have quads
your predictions for gaming are not very valid, by 2014, we might see >50% of games be quad optimized, but not much more than that.

why would i spend 1000$ on a cpu, when 300$ does just as good, and might be 10% worse in 4 years, when 300$ then could get me something that stomps the 1000$ cpu of today

you really should look into the limiting factors for cpus in games and try and assume how that will change in the future. do you really expect the requirements for games to increase 4x, when in the last 4 years have maybe just doubled.

I don't talk about quad, I talk about any CPU against any other CPU. And no, I don't expect them to increase 4x. But I expect them to increase. And IF requirements double every four years, then will the CPU with 100% more performance today last several years longer.

I don't say that you should buy more expensive CPUs because of games 2014. All I'm trying to say is that if two processors are comparable today, around the same performance and price, except that one of the has much better performance in games. The one with better performance in games have an advantage in a couple of years.

I actually don't understand how people can say that great differences in performance in the games today won't matter later. If you buy a new CPU every year maybe, but most people don't.

That is a mistake.
Consider scenario:
1 thread is running on single core of BD delivering a 100% of performance.
2 threads are running on 2 cores within same DB module and delivers 180% of performance.
Now, 2 same threads are running on 2 cores of different DB modules. They deliver 200% of performance. So we saw a performance impact - 180% instead of 200%. And no performance increase...
And this is exactly as it would be with Intel's core with HT.

You misunderstand me. I say that hyperthreading can leave a performance impact in single threaded applications. But a module design might actually increase in performance in single threaded applications compared to core design, since it now can focus the prefetch and FPU on only one thread.
Two FPUs might increase performance in single threaded programs. If the FPU wasn't shared, this wouldn't be possible.

Sorry if this has been brought up, i'm struggling to follow this thread now!, but If you look at the 50% higher performance claims as a fully utilised, 4 Module - 8 module CPU, then shouldn't single threaded performance actally be a strong point? since a single core processing a thread isn't sharing the front end, nor the cache?

The statement that performance "scales 80%" from 1 core, to 2 cores in a module kind of proves this point.

This also makes any "12.5%" IPC per core calculation wrong.

Yes, you are right.
I've stated in a previous post that the performance must be higher than 112.5% in single threaded applications if bulldozer scales bad over 4 threads (8 for MCM). But I've also said that it must be lower than 112.5% if it scales better than MC.

You can't have more than 12.5% performance increase and 33% more cores at once and still only deliver 50% more performance with the same scaling. That's why the scaling must be worse in Bulldozer to achieve more than 12.5% performance increase in single threaded application.

I asked this quesiton earlier, (I think) but I'll ask again. Does anyone know how 4 threads are handled by the OS on a 4 module - 8 core BD?

I think (hope) that it will try to have one thread per module at once. Four heavy threads would be spread out on 4 modules. It will need 5 heavy threads or more before it's giving a module two threads.
But unfortunately I don't really have a clue.

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

Yes, and a bit different process on Thuban. But were talking performance wise. Is the ALU or FPU different? Any internal latencies? Or will there be no difference in performance if you negate the MCM design?
I think there is no difference in performance between two istanbul and one Magny Cours that can be derived from the MCM design. (better interconnect).

Or if it is, can you enlighten me what that difference would be.

[tifosi]

This is not true, they are different steppings with different features.

However, most of the architectural changes made to the core weren't publicized by AMD... Now that it is available in open market and next gen tech is almost here... could we possibly have more information on core tech in Magny Cours?

Oh, before someone flames me, i know JF has a job to do and i respect that. If he shares info, well and good. If he can't, it is alright just as well. However, i had to ask. Curiosity begot the cat and now its me.

[JF-AMD]

However, most of the architectural changes made to the core weren't publicized by AMD... Now that it is available in open market and next gen tech is almost here... could we possibly have more information on core tech in Magny Cours?

Oh, before someone flames me, i know JF has a job to do and i respect that. If he shares info, well and good. If he can't, it is alright just as well. However, i had to ask. Curiosity begot the cat and now its me.

Sorry, we don't get into core level things here. There are things that I just can't talk about.

[tifosi]

Sorry, we don't get into core level things here. There are things that I just can't talk about.

Thanks for replying mate!

p.s: dunno if you checked this other thread, but here's a tip for your legal team.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ld#post4500153

[JF-AMD]

Thanks for replying mate!

p.s: dunno if you checked this other thread, but here's a tip for your legal team.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ld#post4500153

That is a suggestion, not something that is real. Akin to saying if someone had a gun they might rob a bank.

[tifosi]

That is a suggestion, not something that is real. Akin to saying if someone had a gun they might rob a bank.

Understood. However, we are talking about someone who's been caught more than once with their hand in the cookie jar, sorry that was Dell (pun is intended). This i type on an Intel system. O' the horror, the shame