AMD FX "Bulldozer" Review - (4) !exclusive! Excuse for 1-Threaded Perf.

[BeepBeep2]

Yeah IPC needs to be improved,that is for sure. I hope they hit the 10% listed for Piledriver from the FX Next slide. There are definitely some bottlenecks ,especially for legacy(old) code, primarily in the front end and L1 cache. If they manage to fix some of these issues and if GloFo improves their 32nm process,we would welcome Piledriver with more favorable reviews.

I am wondering if that 10% increase comes from a 1.25% increase in performance over each thread (The way AMD has been marketing, I wouldn't doubt it at all)

AMD needs a 45-50% gain to compete with intel in single thread, at the same clock scaling and unless Intel designs Netburst 2 it will only get worse.
The IPC vs core speed gap went from 25% and 15% clocks to 50% and 5% clocks...not what I was expecting at least.

I spoke so long about how competitive STARS is from a performance per mm2 perspective vs Nehalem...and to be honest, it is also very competitive on a performance per watt perspective as well. They should have shrunk X6, adopted the tweaked and refined Llano "STARS" core with it's 5% IPC boost, doubled the L2 cache (to give 1MB per core), doubled L3 to 12MB...refined memory controller like they did with BD...increased core speed to 3.7/3.9 Turbo/4.2 ST Turbo or so.

That would be a competitive CPU, would it not?