AMD "Piledriver" refresh of Zambezi - info, speculations, test, fans

[TESKATLIPOKA]

-Boris-

Fine, we use your die-size estimates, you do have a point there. So we agree that Thuban is more like 50% effective per mm². Higher single thread performance and smaller size making more cores possible for better multithread performance is a winner in my eyes.

I don't agree about perf/mm2
I made new calculations and it ended with
6C Thuban cache 9MB 32nm 232mm2
4M/8C BD cache 16MB 32nm 315mm2
Thats 36% difference in die size but BD is 8% faster.
The thing is you are talking about the whole chip and I think you know cache doesn't give nowhere near as much performance as the size it occupies.
Second, if you want to compare it that badly compare just the cores vs modules it would be more accurate. 1M/2C is more or less equal to 2C Llano ~ 2 Deneb cores in size.
K10 can have better perf/mm2 actually I think it has but nowhere near as much as you want(think).

Now that's a straw man! I said THUBAN with Llanos IPC-improvements and with BD's or Llanos IMC. That's not the same thing. The GPU is defining Llano more than some IPC improvements. A Thuban with some IPC-improvements is not a Llano.

what you are doing is trying to convince us that Thuban with Llano IMC and Llano Improvements is not Llano just because it doesn't have the IGP, you can call It Thuban 2 if you prefer I don't care because its not important and BTW I clearly wrote 6C Llano without IGP and not deactivated so you had enough time to comprehend what I meant in my original post and that part wasn't even important compared to the rest.

But I understand it's tempting to call it a Llano since Llanos integration of NB has made it very hard to overclock, so it's tempting to make my suggestion look bad by comparing it with crippled products.

Yeah its really tempting and unfair to call a 6 core chip with Llano cores and IMC as Llano
Your point about OC is pointless because I never said anything about that, I was always comparing on default frequency.

I've said Thuban many times during this discussion, and Deneb is an older and less performing version of Phenom II. You can't just use a product with lesser performance when we are talking about how capable a line up is. It's like saying Fords are faster than Ferraris just because Fords fastest car is faster than Ferraris worst. And that's definitely a straw man argument. Let us compare the best of Phenom II to the best of Bulldozer!

For your information Deneb and Thuban have the same core and IMC, everything is the same, L1,L2 cache per core even L3 cache, the only difference is Thuban has 2 more cores with L2 cache nothing more.
BTW I still don't know what's your problem. Did I compare 4M BD versus 6C Thuban? yes I did, but I had the audacity to include the highest(best) Deneb and even compare lower BD models to Llano(IGP was powergated) because they are on the same process. The best thing would have been if I also compared Deneb vs FX4100 (4threads vs 4threads) and Thuban vs FX6100(6threads vs 6threads).

And I still see no reason why Phenom II would have lower frequencies on 32nm. Llano shows that 32nm brings a big drop in power consumption. Why would the frequencies be worse? We can't tell until we have an truly unlocked Llano, and even then we still don't know if Llano suffers from tradeoffs from being coupled with a GPU not made for the same type of process.

I will tell you one last time and you don't need an unlocked Llano.

4C 32nm Llano 2.9Ghz TDP 100W (has higher power draw than FX4100 with TDP 95W while the IGP is power-gated so the TDP 100W should be correct for CPU)
4C 45nm Phenom II X4 B99(Deneb) 3.3Ghz TDP 95W (+400Mhz)
4C 45nm Deneb 3.7Ghz TDP 125W (+800Mhz)
TDP 95->125W is 400Mhz for +30W in TDP
So increasing TDP to 130W would mean 3.3Ghz Llano(+400mhz), the difference is still 400Mhz between the older and current process on the same architecture.

I don't think IGP has a noticeable impact on frequency, because if it had then already produced ES Trinity with bigger IGP than Llano wouldn't have default +200Mhz(turbo +300Mhz) than FX 4100 on the same process and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the final frequency during launch.

[savantu]

-Boris-
I don't agree about perf/mm2
I made new calculations and it ended with
6C Thuban cache 9MB 32nm 232mm2
4M/8C BD cache 16MB 32nm 315mm2
Thats 36% difference in die size but BD is 8% faster.

BD is 8% faster than the 45nm Thuban. For 32nm, you'd have 36% size difference and likely 10-20% performance difference in Thuban's favour ( higher clocks at the same power if nothing else ). So 50% more performance/sq mm isn't unreasonable.

[-Boris-]

-Boris-
I don't agree about perf/mm2
I made new calculations and it ended with
6C Thuban cache 9MB 32nm 232mm2
4M/8C BD cache 16MB 32nm 315mm2
Thats 36% difference in die size but BD is 8% faster.
The thing is you are talking about the whole chip and I think you know cache doesn't give nowhere near as much performance as the size it occupies.
Second, if you want to compare it that badly compare just the cores vs modules it would be more accurate. 1M/2C is more or less equal to 2C Llano ~ 2 Deneb cores in size.
K10 can have better perf/mm2 actually I think it has but nowhere near as much as you want(think).

It depends, I think 32nm would bring som nice frequency improvements. A thuban with 6% higher IPC from Llano-optimizations and 3% from BD IMC and a base clock at 3.8GHz seems extremely resonable to me. Add Turbo Core 2.0 and it will beat Bulldozer even more in single thread performance. You can read further down in this post about why I think 32nm has such potential.

what you are doing is trying to convince us that Thuban with Llano IMC and Llano Improvements is not Llano just because it doesn't have the IGP, you can call It Thuban 2 if you prefer I don't care because its not important and BTW I clearly wrote 6C Llano without IGP and not deactivated so you had enough time to comprehend what I meant in my original post and that part wasn't even important compared to the rest.

You did not write the part without IGP, that's just lies, you can't just pretend that you said that from the beginning. Here it is:

you run to an alternative reality where you can find a 6C Llano ~3.7Ghz with <=125W TDP on working 32nm process but reality is way different..

And that's just a straw man. The whole thing with Llano is the IGP, if you talk about Llanos without IGP you have to say that. If you pretend or insinuate that my arguments is about something totally different from what they really is about. That is making a straw man. And don't dare get me a quote where you say you meant without IGP if it's from a post after I made my complaint about your straw man tactics.

Yeah its really tempting and unfair to call a 6 core chip with Llano cores and IMC as Llano
Your point about OC is pointless because I never said anything about that, I was always comparing on default frequency.

No you didn't say it, but Llano, due to it's design clocks like turds. So by calling my suggestion a Llano without mentioning you meant without the parts that cripples Llanos frequency potential, you made it seem like my argument was about full Llano APUs with extra cores and higher frequency. Which of course is pretty stupid. A straw man is to "misinterpret" someones argument to something stupid and then argue against that made up stupid stand point instead of the real one. That's why I protested. But if you want we can call it Thuban II or Phenom III from now on. But then we have to be clear what we are arguing about. My definition is a shrinked Thuban core, with the same caches, and with Llanos IPC-improvements and IMC.

For your information Deneb and Thuban have the same core and IMC, everything is the same, L1,L2 cache per core even L3 cache, the only difference is Thuban has 2 more cores with L2 cache nothing more.
BTW I still don't know what's your problem. Did I compare 4M BD versus 6C Thuban? yes I did, but I had the audacity to include the highest(best) Deneb and even compare lower BD models to Llano(IGP was powergated) because they are on the same process. The best thing would have been if I also compared Deneb vs FX4100 (4threads vs 4threads) and Thuban vs FX6100(6threads vs 6threads).

When I talk about how efficient Phenom II is I of course meant the most efficient modell. And Thuban has more performance per mm², higher performance per watt and higher IPC for the whole die than Deneb. It should be obvius that I talk about Thuban, since I mentioned it tens of times in this thread already. So please stop making my arguments seem to be about things they aren't.

I will tell you one last time and you don't need an unlocked Llano.

4C 32nm Llano 2.9Ghz TDP 100W (has higher power draw than FX4100 with TDP 95W while the IGP is power-gated so the TDP 100W should be correct for CPU)
4C 45nm Phenom II X4 B99(Deneb) 3.3Ghz TDP 95W (+400Mhz)
4C 45nm Deneb 3.7Ghz TDP 125W (+800Mhz)
TDP 95->125W is 400Mhz for +30W in TDP
So increasing TDP to 130W would mean 3.3Ghz Llano(+400mhz), the difference is still 400Mhz between the older and current process on the same architecture.

I don't think IGP has a noticeable impact on frequency, because if it had then already produced ES Trinity with bigger IGP than Llano wouldn't have default +200Mhz(turbo +300Mhz) than FX 4100 on the same process and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the final frequency during launch.

Some very creative math there with lots of things that can go wrong. You can't calculate that way, I can show math that 700MHz is 0w extra TDP. Or that 2 extra cores is 30W less TDP! So drop that please.
The thing is, Llano uses 5-20W less power than Athlon II on 45nm! So your argument is invalid. And power gated doesn't mean it doesn't affect performance, if you make a large chip and turn half of the chip off it won't be nearly as cool and fast as a chip made half as big from the beginning. That said Llano was the first of it's kind, it's not surprising if tradeoffs has been made. And you tend to forget that Llano is faster than FX-4100.
And again, we don't know anything about Llanos capabilities, since it's locked and is an architecture that don't allow high buses. Just like locked SB! And it's not unreasonable that Llano is held back because of Piledriver. If they released Llano at 3.4GHz and it beats Piledriver, how would that look? It might be the Tualatin syndrome all over again.

Since 32nm uses less power than 45nm despite an extra GPU you will have a hard time proving that 32nm wouldn't work good with Thuban. And that math of your can "prove" just about anything, try harder.

[Smartidiot89]

So discussion went from constructive to "who wrote what, and you're using straw man arguments". The most important thing is being right, not actually bringing something to the table

GO GO THE INTERNETZ !

[desnudopenguino]

So discussion went from constructive to "who wrote what, and you're using straw man arguments". The most important thing is being right, not actually bringing something to the table

GO GO THE INTERNETZ !

I agree. And isn't this thread supposed to be about piledriver, not BD and Thuban anyway?

[BeepBeep2]

So discussion went from constructive to "who wrote what, and you're using straw man arguments". The most important thing is being right, not actually bringing something to the table

GO GO THE INTERNETZ !

+1 internet for Smartidiot

Despite TESKATLIPOKA's more "correct" calculations (though I measured the 45nm core and compared it to 32nm Llano core) I'm pretty sure even teskatlipoka even agrees that performance is currently better on STARS than BD. It seems we've settled around 30% per mm2, in worst case. What if we did have that 8 core STARS? Is it even possible for single thread to be slower than BD? By the way, in some single threaded applications, BD needs ~6 Ghz+ to keep up with the stock 2600K...

So, what improvements do we expect to see for Piledriver?