Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Xzibit, Aug 26, 2011.
Then, we have to wait
It's basically a quad core with hardware SMT. Still better than traditional SMT on paper but we'll have to see how it actually performs
No, the FX series is CPU only and no built-in IGP. The first Bulldozer APU is coming next year.
Actually no answer is correct here about how many cores the Bulldozer has!
The Bulldozer has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores, as each floating point core is shared between two integer cores. The reason AMD went this route is integer operations are used much more than floating point operations. Now with each module, it can execute either 1 256 bit AVX instruction (combining the 2 pipelines) or 2 128 bit etc instructions (2 separate pipelines).
Integer and floating point instructions are NOT handled by the same processing hardware or instructions.
In a very traditional sense it is a true 8 core, as CPU's never used to come with a floating point unit, the x86 instruction set is traidtionally integer and the x87 floating point, although now x86 refers to both (as does x64). Things like SSE etc are extensions to the traditional instruction set and may include both integer or floating point instructions. For example AVX are floating point instructions, so they prove little use in integer only processing (although still can come in handy where other optimised instructions aren't available). The h264 encoder 'x264' uses AVX this way, as encoding is integer based. If you don't believe me, ask the developers on its main forum (or better do a search, they've stated that several times).
So is AMD 8 core or 4 core? the answer is basically 8 core. It is NOT a SMT (hyoterthreading) with dedicated hardware, thats over-simplifying it. Nor can it be described as a 1.8 core etc, as it does have 2 real integer cores, just not 2 foating point cores (but you can run 2 non rarely used 256 AVX instructions in parallel).
So can you fairly compare a 4 core (2 module) CPU to an Intel 4 core? the answer depends on cost. Like i said earlier, people need to compare CPU's and GPU's based on cost. People have been comparing the FX-8150P to the Sandy-Bridge E, it really doesn't matter whether the FX-8150P and Sandy-Bridge E are both the high end desktop versions from Intel or AMD, if the FX-8150 costs $300 and the Sandy Bridge E $800, its a completely pointless comparison.
AMD chose the module solution to enable users to have higher performance at a lower ccomparative cost, however it is not a crippled CPU or any other method to describe 'not a complete CPU'.
In a comparative cost perspective, I fully believe the Bulldozer is a winning solution, but I do know that no matter how the new Bulldozers perform people will try and compare its '8 core-ness' to Intel's 4 cores. Say hypothetically if the FX-8150 performed 80 percent better than the similarily priced i7-2600K, people will say its a fail because its 8 cores wasn't twice as fast. Even if its 10 percent faster. Its still FASTER for the same price, and thats what people need to consider.
Remember also no matter how the benchmarks perform, they probably won't show the benefit of XOP, FMA4 etc that the Bulldozer has and Intel hasn't, so for programs that eventually support those instructions you have to consider they'll get an extra little jump in performance too.
What matters is the performance per cost, and that its 8 REAL integer cores, and effectively 'variable mode' 4 floating point cores.
Yes, I agree that price dictates which is the winner, and is a major decision factor for someone like me who calculates a lot on performance/price.
As calling it a quad core w/ dedicated hardware SMT is of course an over simplification, that was my point was to simplify a complex answer, of course details will be lost.
imo the answer is 4 x ~1.8 = 7.2 core in real scenarios, like executing normal 128bit SSEx.x operations., at 256bit yea its a 4 core, just like SB i7 2000 quad series.
So even if it is only 10% faster and at the exact same price, would it justify the much higher TDP? AMD always underrates their CPU's TDP(meaning it uses way more power than they say) while intel is the opposite.
this is true, sure amd has higher tdp than intel - but has more cores so of course it does - and different architechture. But it all depends on what your personal preference is. The same reason why amds gpus are in most case much more effiecient and use less power than nvidias. People still buy them because they're like meh, power..who cares? its a good price or amazing performance so i'll take it.
Then there's those of us that are more concious of power and heat efficiency..so yeah, it swings both ways like a bi sexual.
Shouldn't we all just wait a few more weeks and then all questions will be answered? Personally, I'd love to go back to AMD because the ole' 1.1 Ghz Thunderbird was my first custom build and AMD holds a special place in my heart. However, price/performance ratio is the key in the equation because my PC's are built for one thing-gaming.
I think that the Socket 2011 Sandy Bridge E is going to be utterly useless for gaming given that 99% of titles can't even stress out my current CPU. If one has a Socket 1366 Core i7 or a 2500/2600 SB, I don't see why anyone would consider moving to Bulldozer or the 2011.
Now, if Bulldozer can beat a 2500/2600 by 15-20%, and taking into account it's supposed price points, then that may be very tempting. Personally, I'm probably going to wait until Ivy Bridge. But maybe, just maybe, Bulldozer will change that outlook. Time will tell.
2011 would only be good for cad/3d workflow as well as benchmarkers.
15-20% sounds a little ambitious
Personally hoping for at least a close enough performance to see some competition in the market.
Ditto that brother. Intel has held the upper hand for FAR too long. Given its resources though, one shouldn't be surprised. Just imagine how badly things would suck if there wasn't an AMD though. Econ 101 teaches us that we would be bent over like a child rapist in Super-Max....
True, but even then. Sandy bridge OCs better
We wouldn't know that, maybe Bulldozer overclocks just as well? Maybe 32nm is the holy grail we've been waiting for?
So are this real 8 core CPU's or are they logical cores?
There's real hardware. AMD doesn't believe in logical SMT.
This forums need filter for all bulldozer benchmarks, until Hilbert posts review.
No. because intel had other 32nm CPUs before sandy and they didnt oc as good.
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
I believe AMD set out to produce the best performing CPUs they can, ultimately hoping to compete with Intels best. But if they cant touch Intels best, they HAVE TO re-position the products lower down and at lower prices. It may be a win for the consumers, but it could be a lose for AMD if their margins are too low due to this forced re-positioning of their products.
In 2005, the Athlon x2 4800 was going for a $1000. A year later, a Conroe at $300 put an end to that. I dont think they would be seen as 'winners' if they knocked a $1000 chip's price to 280 at the time.
So bottom line is what it costs them to produce their products vs what they can get for them.
While that may hold some truth to it (the biggest innovation being x86-64, introduction of integrated IMC in x86, first to remove the FSB in an x86 CPU, first to fully implement x86 hardware virtualization), it's the guy who basically tanked AMD who's talking here.
Looking forward to some proper reviews. Until then I'm out of here!