AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[xdan]

@Apokalipse
The slide about cmt is from 2005,long before amd had any real HW im their hands. I stick with what they said at FAD 2010 and that's 80% of cmp design in less die area. The rest of the stuff you quoted is well known information and doesn't go against what I wrote. I even believe there won't be massive hit in integer throughput from running 2 threads on a module. Fp may see the best numbers if threads are 1st scheduled on different modules but this has to be verified.

@Boris
You do realize that in order to get 8 *full* fpus the old way, you have to replicate front ends ,integer exec. units and L1 and L2 caches ,right? This leaves you with wasted and doubled die area that will mostly sit idle (especially fp unit). Beaty of bulldozer is exactly in maximizing perf./watt/mm^2. Btw ,the most power hungry part of the core is usually fpu...

I am not against BD CMT design, but without stronger IPC it's just useless.
So with CMT we have 80% performance of a true core. But the problem is that it's not a 100% performance core + 80% CMT core( comparing Intel + HT), it's 80% performance for both cores in module so...
If we calculate 0.8(80%) * 8 = 6.4 so 6.4 true cores performance, so a bigh hit.
This desing it doesn't scale well the more cores you put.
If we put that the IPC isn't much better- may be the same, not to be pesimist to say lower, than wat we got?
A 6.4 cores with a 10% speed bump, may be a 6.8-7 true cores performance.
So what "maximizing perf./watt/mm^2" - not performance anyway,

I have my info, and BD it's a disappoiment. For an " 8core" . As it' price, overall performance is between 2500K and 2600K, and will be hoter on air cooling than SB.