AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[flyck]

Thuban 6cores has 346mm^ and a TDP of 125W but on 45nm.
On 32nm should have 240-260mm^, see Lynnfield 296mm^(45nm) -> and SB 216mm^ with IGP(32nm).
So it's quite posible that a Thuban with 8 cores and let sau 8MB L3 cache + 8MB L2 cache on 32nm to have 330-346mm^.
And the TDP why should be biger if the die size is the same, and may be the number of the tranzistors would be the same.

With their current 32nm they wouldn't be able to run 6 llano cores at 3GHz and stay under the 100W while having a decent yield.... Not sure how BD does, but the process issue also affect BD (less than llano). The fact that BD is competitive with intel fastest at the moment is alot more than what they had or what an hypotetical 8core llano would be able to do with the state of their process...

[xdan]

Why you just put Llano in comparision, Llano has 40% of the die GPU that's why it has that TDP, not to mention that doing GPU on SOI was wery hard. Llano problems will be much lighter on a cpu design without GPU.

[flyck]

Why you just put Llano in comparision, Llano has 40% of the die GPU that's why it has that TDP, not to mention that doing GPU on SOI was wery hard. Llano problems will be much lighter on a cpu design without GPU.

Because it is the Cpu that consumes the power budget, not the gpu. The gpu is actually very clean and extremely efficient. (it is a complete marvell... far exceeding the efficieny of SB or any other gpu we know at the moment). They need the high voltages to get yields on the cpu, not the gpu. While it probably would do better without the gpu in the yield department. BD is also suffering issues on the 32nm node. So doubling the llano cores, adding fast l3cache will explode on the current process.... Currently having 50W for 4cores@2,6GHz with proper yields is pushing it for llano.... try double that, add cache and 1,5Ghz and see where that would get you. (most likely to a nuclair generator as power supply..).

I am not talking about the possibilities on a good working process, because that would affect BD also in a positive way.

[-Boris-]

Because it is the Cpu that consumes the power budget, not the gpu. The gpu is actually very clean and extremely efficient. (it is a complete marvell... far exceeding the efficieny of SB or any other gpu we know at the moment). They need the high voltages to get yields on the cpu, not the gpu. While it probably would do better without the gpu in the yield department. BD is also suffering issues on the 32nm node. So doubling the llano cores, adding fast l3cache will explode on the current process.... Currently having 50W for 4cores@2,6GHz with proper yields is pushing it for llano.... try double that, add cache and 1,5Ghz and see where that would get you. (most likely to a nuclair generator as power supply..).

I am not talking about the possibilities on a good working process, because that would affect BD also in a positive way.

How do you know that it's the CPU and not the GPU that consumes the power budget? Besides, the silicon and design could be limited by the compatibility with the GPU.

A Phenom II X6 at 32nm would be almost half the size of a Thuban if caches scales as good as cores when shrinking the process. BD must significantly outperform Thuban to justify this change in architecture.

[Manicdan]

How do you know that it's the CPU and not the GPU that consumes the power budget? Besides, the silicon and design could be limited by the compatibility with the GPU.

A Phenom II X6 at 32nm would be almost half the size of a Thuban if caches scales as good as cores when shrinking the process. BD must significantly outperform Thuban to justify this change in architecture.

run a cpu only benchmark
run a gpu only benchmark
run both

the power increase running a gpu only benchmark is like 20w increase, the cpu only is like 60w increase, and both is like 65w increase
these numbers are from memory and not to be considered accurate.

[flyck]

How do you know that it's the CPU and not the GPU that consumes the power budget? Besides, the silicon and design could be limited by the compatibility with the GPU.

First indication:

AMD A8-3850
Radeon HD 6550D
100W
4
2.9GHz
400
600MHz


AMD A8-3800
Radeon HD 6550D
65W
4
2.4/2.7GHz
400
600MHz


TDP significant lower while the only constant is gpu resources and clockspeeds.

second indications:

Reviews A8 3850. They include power figures. it is trading power draw blows with similar clocked 45nm x4 parts.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/9
POwer draw figure cpu only is right where it is for gaming.

A Phenom II X6 at 32nm would be almost half the size of a Thuban if caches scales as good as cores when shrinking the process. BD must significantly outperform Thuban to justify this change in architecture.

Like i mentionned, that is the ideal situation, but the same is true for BD. Ideally on a good process BD would be far better than what they can do now with the current issues. Your hypotetical BD replacement with thuban cores in llano form would simply not do what on this process node what you would expect them to do.

[-Boris-]

First indication:

AMD A8-3850
Radeon HD 6550D
100W
4
2.9GHz
400
600MHz


AMD A8-3800
Radeon HD 6550D
65W
4
2.4/2.7GHz
400
600MHz


TDP significant lower while the only constant is gpu resources and clockspeeds.

You know that you can't read TDPs like that? If one chip gets 66W and one gets 63W, the first will be labeled 100W and the other 65W.

second indications:

Reviews A8 3850. They include power figures. it is trading power draw blows with similar clocked 45nm x4 parts.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/9
POwer draw figure cpu only is right where it is for gaming.

As I read it the GPU intensive load maxes out the TDP more than the CPU intensive load does.

Like i mentionned, that is the ideal situation, but the same is true for BD. Ideally on a good process BD would be far better than what they can do now with the current issues. Your hypotetical BD replacement with thuban cores in llano form would simply not do what on this process node what you would expect them to do.

And you are making bad conclusions. It's reasonable to believe that the modifications in the silicon and transistor types needed for a working GPU isn't optimal for a CPU. GPUs are generally made for low frequencies but higher density on the most power consuming circuits. The design desicions made to fit a working GPU might be bad for a CPU. Llano is not a good example of CPU performance on 32nm. If a Thuban on 45nm isn't to far behind BD then what would happen with a Thuban made on 32nm? It would be almost half the size of Bulldozer, and be capable of higher frequencies than the original Thuban. And still have room for optimizations. And if your theory is correct and 32nm is botched and worse than 45nm, then maybe AMD should stick to 45nm for a while.

[Dimitriman]

You say so . Well it will be hard times for AMD fans to accept that they were lied all the year and that BD is a fail.
Many people defended and made excuses for BD all the summer.
JF AMD keep giving false hopes. Nobody had the guts to tell the truth.

I am let's say more of am Intel fan. But i really want BD to crush a little SB to have something new on market, to have lower prices from Intel.
Intel can because of that release cpu's whenever he wants, what he wants, at what price wants.
We can all say thank you to AMD to their "strong competition".
I was talking about overall performance, without TURBO wich anyway doesn't count in all multithread aplications.

I am pretty sure I don't need to explain how so many of your arguments are purely trying to stirr up some brown mud.

But anyway, myself like many in here are not in this thread to suck up to AMD regardless of how bad/good their product is but we are actually excited that they are putting something new in the market and we are looking at it with a critical eye.

I'm excited for Bulldozer, doesn't mean I am going to buy it. My money goes where performance is higher for my budget.

I suppose many will be dissapointed if Bulldozer won't beat i7 2600k but calling it a complete fail and making wild claims about bad future performance and what ifs from old processors as if they are facts, they are not facts, its your opinion. Bulldozer will be a fail for someone with a 3000$ budget, but if you are looking for an i5 2500k system, you will not be able to avoid comparing it to BD, and the later might end up a little bit better bang for buck.

All is relative.

[Manicdan]

With their current 32nm they wouldn't be able to run 6 llano cores at 3GHz and stay under the 100W while having a decent yield.... Not sure how BD does, but the process issue also affect BD (less than llano). The fact that BD is competitive with intel fastest at the moment is alot more than what they had or what an hypotetical 8core llano would be able to do with the state of their process...

i just imagine what would happen if they took 2 Llano chips and connected them together. 8 cores, dual gpu, and can run in less than 140W if they dont go all out. but also make them unlocked it could be quite a fun all-in-one chip for a not so insane price. but that also gives a pretty good idea of the clock limitations of stars cores. id also be willing to bet that overclocking such a chip would kill any motherboards VRMs. its quite clear the old architecture is getting too old. but i fear the IPC of BD is going to feel old way too quickly.