Bulldozers first screens

[Manicdan]

my problem is, that ppl are comparing 1 BD module to 2 SB cores and thats not right too. lets just say that its like comparing a cat to a dog. they both got 4 legs and a tail, but still they are different.

prepare for car analogy:
SB is a coupe
BD is a sedan
both hold 4 people, one just has more room for them to get in or out.
both have 4 wheels, one looks faster being smaller, and probably is faster when only having 2 people in there, but the other can hold the 4 people comfortably as its used.

and no this is not suppose to make perfect sense, lol

[keithlm]

my problem is, that ppl are comparing 1 BD module to 2 SB cores and thats not right too. lets just say that its like comparing a cat to a dog. they both got 4 legs and a tail, but still they are different.

DEPENDENT ON PRICE it might be much more logical to compare a module to a hyperthreaded core than it would be to compare a module to 2 hyperthreaded cores.

So what is logical to compare might not be the same as what they plan on competing with. It will all come down to performance.

If a module performs almost identical to a single hypethreaded core, then I would expect them to price the chips accordingly. But in the same light if a module performs at least 85% as well as 2 hyperthreaded cores... then I would expect them to also price it accordingly.

BTW: It doesn't matter that the chips are different; people are going to compare based on SOMETHING. I would personally use performance/price. But we'll have the performance at all cost people comparing other things.

[Mats]

How about just comparing the performance at the same price point?

This eternal argument of cores/threads/modules leads us nowhere, especially without ACTUAL BENCHMARKS.

[demonkevy666]

How about just comparing the performance at the same price point?

This eternal argument of cores/threads/modules leads us nowhere, especially without ACTUAL BENCHMARKS.

we can say this it should be at least faster then phenom II clock pre clock.

[chew*]

How about just comparing the performance at the same price point?

This eternal argument of cores/threads/modules leads us nowhere, especially without ACTUAL BENCHMARKS.

Well tbh it would behoove AMD to market a Module as a core, with 2 threads inside each module...........

Why?

Because more often than not it will get compared to an equivalent intel part with 4 cores........which happens to have 8 threads.

Just like HWbot where wprime rankings are based on the amount of cores not threads due to it being a "feature".

Amd needs to term this as a "feature" or they are still in the same boat they have always been...........competing with 8 threads less in an 8 core benchmark........when socket 2011 hits.

Touting the claim "worlds first 8 core cpu has minimal short term returns"

Touting performance claims AMD's 4 core solution = or better than intels current 4 core parts " long term gains"

I still say the first company to figure out how to stack cores ( cascade them if you will ) so 2# 3 gig parts = a singlethreaded 6gig core finds the honey.

Whether that is physically possible I have no clue however thats what I think will change the processor world forever.

[Dimitriman]

Well tbh it would behoove AMD to market a Module as a core, with 2 threads inside each module...........

Why?

Because more often than not it will get compared to an equivalent intel part with 4 cores........which happens to have 8 threads.

Just like HWbot where wprime rankings are based on the amount of cores not threads due to it being a "feature".

Amd needs to term this as a "feature" or they are still in the same boat they have always been...........competing with 8 threads less in an 8 core benchmark........when socket 2011 hits.

4 threads less. Socket 2011 will be limited to hexcores for the time being.
Also AMD will have 5 module desktop variants in 2012, should arrived within 6months of s2011 intels.

[keithlm]

Well tbh it would behoove AMD to market a Module as a core, with 2 threads inside each module...........

It comes around to what I said about chip developer/designer INTENT.

Q: How many threads did the developers of the Intel chip with 4 hyperthreaded cores plan to optimally service?

Q: How many threads did the developers of the 8 core AMD chip, comprised of 4 cores, plan to optimally service?

In both cases the number of cores (or modules) is not as important as the number of threads the designer planned to support.

[chew*]

It comes around to what I said about chip developer/designer INTENT.

Q: How many threads did the developers of the Intel chip with 4 hyperthreaded cores plan to optimally service?

Q: How many threads did the developers of the 8 core AMD chip, comprised of 4 cores, plan to optimally service?

In both cases the number of cores (or modules) is not as important as the number of threads the designer planned to support.

The problem still lies in the fact that because of this most reviewers are going to head to head it not based on pricing but based on flagship multicored parts.

Bulldozer will go head to head with gulftown, 8 threads to 12 threads yet the review will get spun as a 6 core part beating a 8 core part in multithreaded performance if 8 cores is not enough to beat 12 threads which based on my personal calculations is going to be close.

The flip side of this is they will also compare to a cheaper sandy part which by my estimations will lose in multithreaded.......however IPC wise at same clocks lets face it, sandy bridge is going to be a tough nut to crack.....

[keithlm]

Bulldozer will go head to head with gulftown, 8 threads to 12 threads yet the review will get spun as a 6 core part beating a 8 core part in multithreaded performance if 8 cores is not enough to beat 12 threads which based on my personal calculations is going to be close.

AH... I predict that you are correct. That is exactly what might happen. Less knowledgeable people will be deceived.

In the past this has happened so often that I just kind of accept it and laugh at the people that will base their opinions on what the people screaming the loudest will be shouting.

But that is just the way things will be since there a MANY MANY more Intel advocates than there are AMD advocates. So we can expect people to award the fictional and pointless "crown" based on things that mean nothing. So in other words nothing has changed for a few years.

[XRL8]

Image posted by liberato87 is a 100% fake. Because it is already known that in CPU-Z string HT-Link/Rated FSB for Bulldozer must be EMPTY. Author of CPU-Z have posted the real CPU-Z image for Bulldozer in his article: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/833-...bulldozer.html
Also it was confirmed by one of the testers (who already received Bulldozer) in his blog. Unfortunately he already deleted the entry, which had some additional info about Bulldozer memory controller speed and power consumption.

Any screenshot that has CPU-Z showing some kind of HT-link frequency - is fake.

PS For the abovementioned screenshot - also please look at how the model's right hand can be seen through Windows Task Manager window. It's clearly shifted to add more cores.

In his blog, CPUZ creator used older than available build of cpuz so that doesnt prove anything.Until he confirms the same can be said of the newest builds.

[jimbo75]

Marketing as 8 core is what will sell more of them, same reason why people buy 2gb graphics cards even though they have a 1280x1024 screen.

Bigger is better, or so they think. Tbh it's only intel fanboys who try to spin the whole "4 cores is better than your 6 cores" argument anyway.

[w0mbat]

well, a FX8 is kinda close to a 8-core cpu and if the i7 2600k is faster that does indeed say something. it may be 8 threads vs. 8 threads, but its 4 int cores vs. 8 int cores.
we just have to find an point where we can say "yes, a module doesnt equal 2 cores but it equals xxx". i think the 1.8x thats floating around for CMT is quiet good.

[XRL8]

Nvidia and ati have vastly different approaches to their chips, the fact that ati has more shaders doesnt mean shader per shader it has to be faster.People seem to understand that.
So whats so hard to comprehend about this ?
Intel has bigger cores, more powerful ones, AMD has more of them but theyre less complex.Easy peasy.

Only metrics that matter are:
Chip size @ same process node
Performance per watt
Performance per $

[piquadrat]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

[BeepBeep2]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

WTF?

How the hell do you know that Bulldozer's IPC will not be better?

[richierich]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

How many applications are single-threaded today? lol. So many more programs are programmed for more than 1 thread now. Dual-cores have been around for so long. Same with quad-cores. Now where do you think the future is headed? And even then AMD has said there will be an IPC increase over K10.5.

[chew*]

I think what the poster was trying to say is AMD has no issues hitting high clocks, it has no issues getting more cores in a chip so what it really needs to focus on is IPC and in a big way.

If they got the IPC up to snuff even 2-3% less than intel........they wouldn't need to keep adding cores, the performance would work across the board including multithreaded, later dates they could add more cores as needed.

[charged3800z24]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

Intel's strong single thread performance has a lot to do with their turbo setup. BD looks like it will have a very agreessive Turbo feature... and we won't know for sure how it does till we see real results.

[chew*]

Thats not what matters though..........

Maybe this will shed some light on what i'm trying to say.

Apples to apples cores/threads.

core i5 2500K 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 5.9 = 5.109

Amd phenom II x4 955 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 6.6 = 5.516

Bottom line IPC carries over to multithreaded performance............

[Solus Corvus]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

I would argue that the case of a single threaded program with no multitasking OS is just as rare as the case of the MT program that scales perfectly with extra cores.

Every modern OS has many threads running in the background. And when you run a single threaded program a multicore processor lets you run other programs without taking cpu resources from the first program. Most people people won't fall in the extreme single core or extreme multicore case but rather somewhere in between. Where they fit in that spectrum depends on what applications they use and how they use them.

I'm glad that Intel and AMD are taking different approaches because designing a processor that is optimal for that entire spectrum of computer usage would be highly impractical. If you are running a single threaded program and can't do other stuff at the same time, say benching with superpi, then Intel's processors would probably be the better choice. Or if you are running a MT program that scales with cores or running a large number of simultaneous processes, such as encoding or many VMs, then AMD's processor might be the better choice.

I think it is a huge flaw of logic to expect one processor to be the best at everything. Not all programs are the same, not all algorithms are the same, and not all users are the same. IMO, it is good that there will be some diversity in the marketplace so we can pick the processors that are best for what we need them to do.

[BeepBeep2]

I think what the poster was trying to say is AMD has no issues hitting high clocks, it has no issues getting more cores in a chip so what it really needs to focus on is IPC and in a big way.

If they got the IPC up to snuff even 2-3% less than intel........they wouldn't need to keep adding cores, the performance would work across the board including multithreaded, later dates they could add more cores as needed.

I think there's gotta be a balance...it depends on the architecture design.

If we have a core that is 10% slower than Intel's but hits 5.5 Ghz on air then it is easily competitive...not only that but you then see higher Mhz and average user is tricked like in P4/A64 days. I think its more about single thread performance as a whole and not just IPC, even though more IPC looks nice on paper depending on how you look at it.

[jjj]

But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.

Besides the fact that plenty of programs are multithread and that 95% of the users could do with a dual core, you need to understand that BD is a server chip.AMD share in server is very low (around 7% can't really remember the precise number) and server chips have great margins.AMD has around 29% share in desktop and they are ok with that but in notebooks they are at ~13.5% so they are bringing in Llano and in server BD.

[chew*]

I think there's gotta be a balance...it depends on the architecture design.

If we have a core that is 10% slower than Intel's but hits 5.5 Ghz on air then it is easily competitive...not only that but you then see higher Mhz and average user is tricked like in P4/A64 days. I think its more about single thread performance as a whole and not just IPC, even though more IPC looks nice on paper depending on how you look at it.

The problem is currently what we have is a cpu that clocks less for normal temps.........and when it is cranked even 700 mhz higher cold than competitior. It's still losing.

Llano imo is a smart move for AMD, most users don't need all that cpu power, and don't want to buy a high priced vga.

Enter builds that can be done with vga excluded, and built into cpu, something AMD can beat intel at in laptop or low end desktop.

Bulldozer I can't comment on, and I doubt we will see to much even at our around the 7th pertaining to it.

I still think they need to fill that niche with a high IPC moderate cored cpu however.

[demonkevy666]

Thats not what matters though..........

Maybe this will shed some light on what i'm trying to say.

Apples to apples cores/threads.

core i5 2500K 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 5.9 = 5.109

Amd phenom II x4 955 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 6.6 = 5.516

Bottom line IPC carries over to multithreaded performance............

That's less than 15% higher then 5.9

The problem is currently what we have is a cpu that clocks less for normal temps.........and when it is cranked even 700 mhz higher cold than competitior. It's still losing.

by my math that was only close to 12% over 5.9.

honstly bulldozer seems to have a lot less missed IPC pre clock then K10.
which mean it has higher IPC then K10.

[Nintendork]

Thats not what matters though..........

Maybe this will shed some light on what i'm trying to say.

Apples to apples cores/threads.

core i5 2500K 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 5.9 = 5.109

Amd phenom II x4 955 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 6.6 = 5.516

Bottom line IPC carries over to multithreaded performance............

At least compare same gen competitor chips.

i5 2500K
FX4000