AMD Bulldozer server info

[jmm5351]

you have answered for yourself.. if you dont even know what is cluster

so FORGET dual socket. it is not for you

it is exactly JFamd talking about.

If you go back and ACTUALLY read any of my posts, you will clearly see I know what the hell dual socket is, which everyone on this forum knows what dual socket is but apparently you don't. Dual socket implies obviously 2 CPU sockets on 1 motherboard so you can have dual CPU's. Don't tell me what I know and don't know unless I say something wrong. Then you can correct me because I would like for someone to correct me so I can learn. But don't tell me a dual socket system is not for. You don't know what your talking about and you should leave this thread if this is how your going to act towards people. I do not like people who act like you, none of them are good people.

And you say I don't know what a cluster is. phha. I setup a beowulf cluster over 3 years ago with three spare computers I had laying around. It worked pretty well considering that the three computers totally had different hardware in them. And considering the fact that I was using free software which was PVM or since you don't know what that is it stands for Parallel Virtual Machine Message Passing System.

Again don't say I don't know what I am talking about when I most certainly do. If I make a mistake and say the wrong thing then tell me. But I most certainly did not.

[cky2k6]

So by your own argument, you acknowledge that AMD knows more about the subject than you do. Interesting.

There is a difference between quad fx, and just regular high end like 1366 or amd's s939 a64x2 & fx chips. What the desktop bulldozer is competing will be the intel equivalent of s754, aka mainstream. It won't do well against enthusiast sandybridges no matter how much better bulldozer is over current i7 and phenom, there is only so much you can get out of 4 modules when your competition will have 8 core 16 thread chips that will still likely have higher ipc. Yes, amd might be wary of quad fx, but why is it avoiding a market that it was very heavily involved in before conroe came out?

[Chaserjzx100]

but why is it avoiding a market that it was very heavily involved in before conroe came out?

hmmm because they booted out Hector Ruiz as there CEO so there focus shifted?

[god_43]

Dude you are ing retarded man. If you go back and ACTUALLY read any of my posts, you will clearly see I know what the hell dual socket is, which everyone on this forum knows what dual socket is but apparently you don't. Go pick a fight else where man. I don't need your on an internet forum. Dual socket implies obviously 2 CPU sockets on 1 motherboard so you can have dual CPU's. Don't tell me what I know and don't know unless I say something wrong. Then you can correct me because I would like for someone to correct me so I can learn. But don't tell me a dual socket system is not for me jack ass. You don't know what your talking about and you should leave this thread if this is how your going to act towards people. I do not like people who act like you, none of them are good people.

And you say I don't know what a cluster is. phha. I setup a beowulf cluster over 3 years ago with three spare computers I had laying around. It worked pretty well considering that the three computers totally had different hardware in them. And considering the fact that I was using free software which was PVM or since you don't know what that is it stands for Parallel Virtual Machine Message Passing System.

Again don't say I don't know what I am talking about when I most certainly do. If I make a mistake and say the wrong thing then tell me. But I most certainly did not. Take your rubbish somewhere else.

lol you should remove all of the insults from your post; before you get banned.

[jmm5351]

i understand how you are thinking.. JF AMD has stated its reason.. I dont know why it has to be expensive to build dual socket for AM3+. Couldn't mobo manufacturers take hand of the design? or it is more complicated than like this when chip design is involved?

However, if we look to our real needs, it is cheaper to build two computers like crossfire system. Take what it is available.

to build a bling car like from MTV program or a real pure breed racing car. This last alternative is more fun but more expensive as to have a server with Gxx socket or show off with consumer dual socket

And again your wrong. It is not cheaper to build a cluster - as you called it crossfire two computers which that is technically wrong and dumb to say - crossfire refers to connecting more than 1 AMD graphic cards to theoretically double performance even though performance is not doubled and I don't feel like explaining why because that is not the subject of this matter. A cluster is more expensive to build man. You have to buy two pc cases, two motherboards, two power supplies, double everything basically. A cluster is way more money to build. A cluster is nice for supercomputing like the military and for people who have spare computers laying around and want to put them to good use. And sometimes for an enthusiast.

ASUS makes this motherboard that is dual socket and it is cheaper than many single socket desktop motherboards. So you see it would not require that much money for consumers since you would only need to buy two processors. The only extra thing you need to buy would be one processor. It is obviously not more expensive for the manufacturer either as you see the price is very fair at $290. If it took ASUS a crap load of money to make that motherboard well then logic says it would be more money !!!!!

Link to ASUS dual socket motherboard. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131670
That motherboard will also fit in a standard ATX case, although the layout is a little different.

[jmm5351]

lol you should remove all of the insults from your post; before you get banned.

haha yeah you are definitely right. that dude thinks he is on a different level than everyone else though and someone needs to tell him he's crap. you know how it is. I cleaned it up a little.

[Sn0wm@n]

haha yeah you are definitely right. that dude thinks he is on a different level than everyone else though and someone needs to tell him he's crap. you know how it is. I cleaned it up a little.

nice attitude pal

[Dimitriman]

Im a bit less concerned about dual socket as I am about AMD having a product that will match s2011 sandy bridge. Maybe 8 cores wont keep up, but take a 12 core g34 bulldozer opteron, laser off a hyperT link so its not dual socket capable, unlock its multi and clock it over 3.5ghz then call it fx.
This creates three scenarios
1- It would make mobo makers create oc-rich single g34 mobos (and eventually dual socket that could take opterons and oc them too)
2- It would create a differenciated high perf bulldozer with quad ch. ram that would possibly match anything on s2011 by intel
3- It would not interfere with the server segment since the fx it would not be available in dual socket (hence lasering the HT link)

this is one way to make enthusiast consumers happy and to follow amds policy of staying out of dual socket desktops.

PS: I will further extend my marketing 2 cents by even giving some guesswork figures and a shiny naming scheme (tell me if it makes you feel like buying it)

I like the name that Ive seen floating around for bulldozer to be VISION, then we can simply add the number of cores as a part of the name whch will also work to distinguish the the segment:

VISION 2 (AM3+)- 1 module, 4mb cache, dual ch ddr3. up to 4ghz - 65w
VISION 4 (AM3+)- 2 module, 8mb cache, dual ch ddr3, up to 3.8ghz -90w
VISION 8 (AM3+)- 4 module, 16mb cache, dual ch ddr3, up to 3.5 ghz -105w
VISION GX (??)- 2/4 module, 4/8mb (L2), dual ch ddr3, 3.5 ghz with dx 11 graphics -105/125w
VISION FX (G34)- 3+3 module dual die, 24 mb cache, quad ch ddr3, up to 3.6 ghz -125w


how do you like my AMD bulldozer lineup?

[jeremyshaw]

It will probably take 5million to do so, according to JF-AMD's lecture on introducing new products to the marketplace. There is more than just pure HW engineering probably, lol. I'd love to see a G34 part with an unlocked multi, though outside of a few special sauce chips, it just doesn't happen

[slaveondope]

It may come down to how many c(ore)entimeter's or i(nteger)nch's you are for the ladies to decide...

Fail I know for those who can;t convert

[informal]

Im a bit less concerned about dual socket as I am about AMD having a product that will match s2011 sandy bridge. Maybe 8 cores wont keep up, but take a 12 core g34 bulldozer opteron, laser off a hyperT link so its not dual socket capable, unlock its multi and clock it over 3.5ghz then call it fx.
This creates three scenarios
1- It would make mobo makers create oc-rich single g34 mobos (and eventually dual socket that could take opterons and oc them too)
2- It would create a differenciated high perf bulldozer with quad ch. ram that would possibly match anything on s2011 by intel
3- It would not interfere with the server segment since the fx it would not be available in dual socket (hence lasering the HT link)

this is one way to make enthusiast consumers happy and to follow amds policy of staying out of dual socket desktops.

PS: I will further extend my marketing 2 cents by even giving some guesswork figures and a shiny naming scheme (tell me if it makes you feel like buying it)

I like the name that Ive seen floating around for bullzoer to be VISION, then we can simply add the number of cores as a part of the name whch will also work to distinguish the the segment:

VISION 2 (AM3+)- 1 module, 4mb cache, dual ch ddr3. up to 4ghz - 60w
VISION 4 (AM3+)- 2 module, 8mb cache, dual ch ddr3, up to 3.8ghz -90w
VISION 8 (AM3+)- 4 module, 16mb cache, dual ch ddr3, up to 3.5 ghz -105w
VISION GX (??)- 2/4 module, 4/8mb (L2), dual ch ddr3, 3.5 ghz with dx 11 graphics -105/125w
VISION FX (G34)- 6 module dual die, 24 mb cache, quad ch ddr3, up to 3.6 ghz -125w


how do you like my AMD bulldozer lineup?

I highly doubt there will be 6 module(12C) 32nm desktop chip on AM3+/whetever.G34 for client space is a pipe dread...

BUT on the other side,we had a slip of the tongue(now "rectified") in AMD code name table just after the Nov Analyst day.Code name Komodo ,up to 10 enhanced Bulldozer cores,intro date :2012.
So basically they let it slip that Zambezi 2(or ++) will be based on 5module(10C) enhanced BD design and probably be AM3+ compatible. 10 cores of BD++ should be enough to match SB/IB 8C . Heck,I expect Zambezi to be competitive with 8C SB in most real world client tasks while it will trail it in most synthetic and those that may be heavily AVX optimized(but the AVX speedup is under big question mark looking at latest RWT forum discussions-according to Eric Bron,author of Kribibench ,expect ~20-25% speedup from real world optimized AVX 256b apps). Also AVX in intel CPUs in its present form lacks 256b integer instruction support while Zambezi will have that in the form of AMD's advanced XOP extension proposal,so if devs optimize multimedia apps for XOP 256bit AMD may end with an big advantage in such cases. Note that in BD,integer SIMD ops are not done by integer core's ALU units but by the FPU (coprocessor). The thing is that 256b (AVX) floating point instructions are useless for games and media applications..

[Dimitriman]

I highly doubt there will be 6 module(12C) 32nm desktop chip on AM3+/whetever.G34 for client space is a pipe dread...

I meant dual 3 module (12 core which will be on G34 from day one), not 6 modules on one single die, even I know thats insane

but I highly doubt a single die 4 module bd will match an 8 core sb on just about anything at all though...

[informal]

but I highly doubt a single die 4 module bd will match an 8 core thread sb on just about anything at all though...

We are talking about client workloads here . I won't be surprised to see BD matching SB 8C in such situations.If it did that in server FP intensive workloads that rely on AVX I would be surprised though.
On paper,one BD integer core is down just one ALU when compared to SB(Load/store capability is roughly the same).But it has a SIMD integer port(x2) in its Flex FP so it's a wash .Clocks on the other hand are a big unknown but there are rumors that 8C 95W parts are 3.5+Ghz. If this is true then 4Ghz 8C 125W parts are not out of the question.And this is stock,Turbo is on top .

[kuroikenshi]

lol you should remove all of the insults from your post; before you get banned.

don't you mean the bananas???

[RaV666]

Didnt some AMD roadmap showed some 5module (10core) for the server space ? This could be at least a differentiator from the normal BD`s on the desktop.
Unlocked 10core Fx chip.I dont know if it would have enough bandwith coming from 2 channels, but that depends.Phenoms arent really starved even on dual 1333mhz memory.
It would be basically same thing to BD as a thuban was for phenoms.

Edit.
Found teh article
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...r_in_2012.html
But it seems it will be on new 3-4 channel infrastructure so its probably not gonna happen on AM3+ :/
Anyone knows what plans has AMD with AM3+, cos it looks kinda bleak, you buy "new" socket, its gonna accept BDver1 8comax.And it seems thats all folks.It would be good to know if AM3+ people are going to get something more than 1 chip.If not, its gonna be worse or same as 1156.

[jmm5351]

nice attitude pal

Thank you !!

[cky2k6]

We are talking about client workloads here . I won't be surprised to see BD matching SB 8C in such situations.If it did that in server FP intensive workloads that rely on AVX I would be surprised though.
On paper,one BD integer core is down just one ALU when compared to SB(Load/store capability is roughly the same).But it has a SIMD integer port(x2) in its Flex FP so it's a wash .Clocks on the other hand are a big unknown but there are rumors that 8C 95W parts are 3.5+Ghz. If this is true then 4Ghz 8C 125W parts are not out of the question.And this is stock,Turbo is on top .

"Client workloads" for those who want these chips consist of 3 things: benching, folding or video. Gamers obviously have no real interest, outside of the trust fund kiddies who buy alienwarez with the most expensive cpu possible. All 3 of these sitauations are very well threaded for the most part, and AMD has the firepower to even beat Intel's 8 core 16 thread chip if it makes a g34 FX with a dual 4 module chip, or will match it with a dual 3 module chip. It will do poorly with a 4 module chip. And JF, before you come out with your stock "but it takes 5 mil" response, for the love of fsm, look at 1366 sales...

[JF-AMD]

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

[Mav451]

Bwahaha JF, that is spot on.

[cky2k6]

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

How on Earth am I talking about 2p systems? What I am talking about is one chip. AMD has 12 and 16 core mcm chips coming out for server, but not desktop. This is what the discussion is about, we stopped trying to convince you about c32 long ago. Make a 1p g34 desktop board with a 1366 lineup of chips ($300, $500, $1000), and you have yourself an answer to intel's high end.

[-Boris-]

How on Earth am I talking about 2p systems? What I am talking about is one chip. AMD has 12 and 16 core mcm chips coming out for server, but not desktop. This is what the discussion is about, we stopped trying to convince you about c32 long ago. Make a 1p g34 desktop board with a 1366 lineup of chips ($300, $500, $1000), and you have yourself an answer to intel's high end.

You understand that MCMs have a much lower frequency right? Per thread it would be much slower, that means that it would be slower in games. The extra threads you get won't matter to most people. People on workstations that need more threads than 8 won't buy FX-chips anyway.

People didn't buy FX for cinebench, the bought them because of game performance and overclocking. An MCM would be worse at both.

An MCM would have a harder time competing with intels high end at these types of workloads than an ordinary bulldozer.

[jmm5351]

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

where I went to high school everybody had sex

[cky2k6]

You understand that MCMs have a much lower frequency right? Per thread it would be much slower, that means that it would be slower in games. The extra threads you get won't matter to most people. People on workstations that need more threads than 8 won't buy FX-chips anyway.

People didn't buy FX for cinebench, the bought them because of game performance and overclocking. An MCM would be worse at both.

An MCM would have a harder time competing with intels high end at these types of workloads than an ordinary bulldozer.

Intel's core 2 quads were mcm chips and clocked quite well. Doesn't mean that bulldozers will be similar, but mcm doesn't necessarily mean poor clocks.

[STEvil]

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

I've got 3 duals.

[Sn0wm@n]

If dual proc client systems are so great, why is it that everyone that says we are missing the market has a single proc desktop in their sig. Yes, why do you have a Core i7 920 3849B028 if the intel 2P systems are our there and so great?

Dual proc client systems are like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but nobody is really doing it.

LOLL epic quote

Intel's core 2 quads were mcm chips and clocked quite well. Doesn't mean that bulldozers will be similar, but mcm doesn't necessarily mean poor clocks.

did you see how large the die is for magny cours???? i expect a big die for the mcm 16 core interlagos cpu ... so i dont expect high clocks to remain in the tdp region they aimed