Friday, January 20th 2012

AMD Vishera Packs Quad-Channel DDR3 IMC, G34 En Route Desktop?

AMD might be a little sore that its "Zambezi" FX processor family based on its much-hyped "Bulldozer" architecture didn't quite meet the performance expectations of a ground-up new CPU architecture, but it doesn't want to take chances and build hype around the architecture that succeeds it. From various sources, some faintly-reliable, we have been hearing that the next-generation of high-performance desktop processors based on "Piledriver" architecture, codenamed "Vishera", will pack five modules or 10 cores, and will be structured essentially like Zambezi, since Piledriver is basically a refinement of Bulldozer architecture. The latest leak comes from the Software Optimization Guide for AMD 15h family (read here), which was picked up by CPU World while most of us were busy with CES.

CPU World compiled most of the features of what it suspected to be AMD referring to its future processors based on the Piledriver architecture, that's "Vishera" (desktop high-performance), "Terramar" (high-density server), and "Sepang" (small-medium business server) parts. The three are not the first chips to be based on Piledriver, AMD has a new mainstream desktop and notebook APU in the works codenamed "Trinity", which is en route for a little later this year. Trinity basically has an identical CPUID instruction-set as Vishera, Terramar, and Sepang, confirming their common lineage compared to today's "Bulldozer" architecture. The most catchy detail is of Vishera featuring 4 DDR3 channels.

The plot thickens where "HyperTransport Assist feature" is listed as being supported on Vishera. HT Assist is a feature found on AMD's enterprise socket G34 processors, which facilitates better inter-die communication between the two dies of a typical socket G34 Opteron processor. The G34 (LGA1972) package is a multi-chip module of two quad-core, six-core, or four-module dies, which combined have four DDR3 memory channels, and a number of HyperTransport links to communicate with neighbouring sockets and the system's chipset. Could this be the first indication that AMD wants to take on Intel LGA2011 HEDT (high-end desktop) using Vishera chips in the G34 package? It will be a while before we find out.

Apart from using common silicon between client and enterprise platforms, AMD does have a history of colliding the two.Source: CPU World
Add your own comment

229 Comments on AMD Vishera Packs Quad-Channel DDR3 IMC, G34 En Route Desktop?

#1
Inceptor
by: Goodman
30% per core , seriously?
That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...

I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best
A 30% performance increase per core is definitely optimistic, extremely optimistic. But you need to reexamine your math, it doesn't mean 8x30% cpu performance increase. A 30% increase per core means a theoretical maximum of 30% performance increase for the entire cpu, all modules, taken together.

Blah blah blah.

I don't think there will be any consumer desktop cpu from AMD after Piledriver. It'll be APUs.
In 2014, the 4th gen "real" fully 'fused' APUs get released, at which point, I think that'll be all that is available for desktop and laptop processors from AMD. APUs will also eliminate the x4xx, x5xx, and x6xx GPUs, and it'll be a three tier system of x7xx/x8xx/x9xx performance level discreet GPUs.
'Steamroller' integer cores will be in the 3rd gen 28nm APUs (Kaveri) and Opterons.
'Excavator'?? integer cores will be in the 4th gen and Opterons.
Posted on Reply
#2
Bvanofferen
by: Goodman
30% per core , seriously?
That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...

I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best

IMO i don't believe AMD PD will do much more than what BD is doing right now they are becoming real morons as far as CPU is concerned

Sorry! for the little rant , lost all faith in AMD CPU performance
To damn bad that Intel is still more expensive than AMD (Mobo + CPU)
I am "stuck" with them but then again i don't really need more "power" but it would be nice to have it...:ohwell:
Why not upgrade to a Thuban? By the time you sell the 925 and find a good deal it would only cost you $50 -75. Then you could crossfire another 6850 and run eyefinity on max settings for dx11 games!

As far as PD wouldn't you consider the 5800k improvements a good example of what Vishera will be?
Posted on Reply
#3
Bvanofferen
It just occurred to me, the trinity super pi results...a Piledriver core producing a 17% single core improvement. Lets see 26.0s down to 23.8 so 13.0 would be 100% improvement, So 100 div 13 is 7.69 * 2.2 =17% there is you per core PD improvement for trinity on super pi. I hate math.....
Posted on Reply
#4
Goodman
by: Bvanofferen
Why not upgrade to a Thuban? By the time you sell the 925 and find a good deal it would only cost you $50 -75. Then you could crossfire another 6850 and run eyefinity on max settings for dx11 games!

As far as PD wouldn't you consider the 5800k improvements a good example of what Vishera will be?
I am not spending any money on my computer until next fall (Autumn) except for maybe another HDD when price get down a little bit more as i got more important things to take care of like a few house repairs & my car later on this summer

by: Bvanofferen
It just occurred to me, the trinity super pi results...a Piledriver core producing a 17% single core improvement. Lets see 26.0s down to 23.8 so 13.0 would be 100% improvement, So 100 div 13 is 7.69 * 2.2 =17% there is you per core PD improvement for trinity on super pi. I hate math.....
I call the new A10-5800k BAD! really bad...
A10-5800k clock at 3.8ghz vs A8-3850 clock at 2.9ghz & the A10-5800k gets only 2.264sec better than the A8-3850 in SuperPI with 900mhz advantage i call this a big , big fail :shadedshu

If the A10-5800k did 2.264sec better but was clock at around 2.6-2.9ghz than i would said it is better but no it's WORST!!!
AMD CPU's performance is getting down all the time they should just give up & concentrate on GPU's only :o :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#5
sergionography
by: Goodman
30% per core , seriously?
That would mean 240% faster then the current FX BD , not going to happen...

I expect 30% total (3.75% per core) & that will only be in a very few benchs but i think in daily use we will most likely see a 10-20% at best

IMO i don't believe AMD PD will do much more than what BD is doing right now they are becoming real morons as far as CPU is concerned

Sorry! for the little rant , lost all faith in AMD CPU performance
To damn bad that Intel is still more expensive than AMD (Mobo + CPU)
I am "stuck" with them but then again i don't really need more "power" but it would be nice to have it...:ohwell:
lol well I did state that I was being too optimistic, but you definitely fail on the math part there! 30% increase in single thread doesn't mean 240% increase in overall performance. Its 30% all around, and I was only going by what AMD claims in the slides and speculating based on that
You are thinking way too theoretically that 30% per core is 240% improvement overall added to the CPU, and that is true but not insane, let me explain, if one core is 100% then 8cores is 800% right? Add to that 240 u end up with 1040%, 800/1040=0.76, so bulldozer will have 76% the performance of pd in multithread(assuming 30% percore increase) so the 240% overall computational increase that u mentioned sounds crazy because u are comparing it to one core but when compared the whole chip its consistent with the single core increase
Posted on Reply
#6
xenocide
by: sergionography
lol well I did state that I was being too optimistic, but you definitely fail on the math part there! 30% increase in single thread doesn't mean 240% increase in overall performance. Its 30% all around, and I was only going by what AMD claims in the slides and speculating based on that
You are thinking way too theoretically that 30% per core is 240% improvement overall added to the CPU, and that is true but not insane, let me explain, if one core is 100% then 8cores is 800% right? Add to that 240 u end up with 1040%, 800/1040=0.76, so bulldozer will have 76% the performance of pd in multithread(assuming 30% percore increase) so the 240% overall computational increase that u mentioned sounds crazy because u are comparing it to one core but when compared the whole chip its consistent with the single core increase
You should be on AMD's Marketing team with that goofy logic. I can see it now; No, No, it's not a 5% performance gain, it's a 40% gain across the whole chip!
Posted on Reply
#7
Bvanofferen
by: Goodman
I call the new A10-5800k BAD! really bad...
A10-5800k clock at 3.8ghz vs A8-3850 clock at 2.9ghz & the A10-5800k gets only 2.264sec better than the A8-3850 in SuperPI with 900mhz advantage i call this a big , big fail
WOW, 17% core improvement on super pi doesn't even consider the new instruction sets and the overclock-ability. Since it uses less power these chips, should hit 5 ghz on a good air cooler and mobo. Did your Dog die or something? If so, I'm sorry, don't take it out on AMD

Clock speed is only one part of thread performance... Memory, cache latency, NB and even HDD can affect per thread performance. So you can't expect a 1/1 ratio for improvement from CPU clock speed on any CPU.
Posted on Reply
#8
Goodman
by: Bvanofferen
WOW, 17% core improvement on super pi doesn't even consider the new instruction sets and the overclock-ability. Since it uses less power these chips, should hit 5 ghz on a good air cooler and mobo. Did your Dog die or something? If so, I'm sorry, don't take it out on AMD

Clock speed is only one part of thread performance... Memory, cache latency, NB and even HDD can affect per thread performance. So you can't expect a 1/1 ratio for improvement from CPU clock speed on any CPU.
Still not good...
My old PII 925 with an 900mhz overclock get a good 5sec better then original speed on Spi
The A10-500k with 900mhz advantage barely get 2sec better the the A8-3850
If both were at same clock i am pretty sure the A10-5800k will fall behind by a good 3-5sec

We're back in the P4 days except now it's AMD turns...
Posted on Reply
#9
devguy
by: Goodman
Still not good...
My old PII 925 with an 900mhz overclock get a good 5sec better then original speed on Spi
The A10-500k with 900mhz advantage barely get 2sec better the the A8-3850
If both were at same clock i am pretty sure the A10-5800k will fall behind by a good 3-5sec

We're back in the P4 days except now it's AMD turns...
Maybe it's just me, but if I were looking at getting an APU laptop (wouldn't be overclocking it any), I wouldn't give a rat's ass about performance / clock (IPC). Performance / watt would be the only metric I'd look at, and if one chip gives me more performance with the same or less power used than another, I don't care if it needs an extra 10 Ghz to do it.

Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant. As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B. So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now). And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.
Posted on Reply
#10
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: devguy
And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.
I agree unless your building a silent or home theater PC, or a mini-server that runs your network and has battery backup since that can impact runtime without power from the mains.
Posted on Reply
#11
Bvanofferen
by: devguy
Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant. As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B. So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now). And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.
I am with you 110%!!!:toast:

Bulldozer FX chips have huge overclock potential. I gained 40% on passmark with fx-6100 @4.7ghz stable on cafa70. But I overclock everything that I can. The less cores, the higher clocks people are getting. The FX-4100 hits 5ghz on $30 coolers regularly. Intel locks their chips to prevent higher speeds on cheaper cpu's!

Also, Bulldozer chips hit higher clocks then 1155 chips when paired with the same cooler.

There isn't enough info yet to say that trinity's clocks are as a result of lower IPC, Thus misleading.... Remember Memory, NB and HT I think are all the same on Llano and Trinity. Contrary to what people are posting at 2.2ghz trinity is more efficient but when Trinity hits 4.2 efficiency is the same for FP and Int as Llano. And since Llano doesn't hit 4.2... It's hard to say for sure.

On the FP and Int tests the 5800k is 12% or so behind the 2500k without the benifit of L3 cache.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Trinity-Field-Test-Shows-FPU-Performance-Superior-to-Bulldozer-263649.shtml

SO will Vishera's overclock potential be leveled compared to bulldozer???:eek:

I doubt it, Llano can't be tested at 4.2, If it could be I'm sure Trinity would have better IPC, since it does at 2.2. I think though, that the PD FX-6300 will have to hit 5.2Ghz stable on my same cooler to not be a dissapointment, compared to my fx-6100, if Vishera's improvment matches Trinity. My fx-6100 loads windows @ 5.2 but gets errors and overheats fast. So I'm optimistic with RCM.
Posted on Reply
#12
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Bvanofferen
Bulldozer FX chips have huge overclock potential. I gained 40% on passmark with fx-6100 @4.7ghz stable on cafa70. But I overclock everything that I can. The less cores, the higher clocks people are getting. The FX-4100 hits 5ghz on $30 coolers regularly. Intel locks their chips to prevent higher speeds on cheaper cpu's!
My locked 3820 hits 4.75Ghz on air and at the time it was only 50 USD more than the 8150. A better IPC and less power consumption and it still performs damn well. Also keep in mind that any benchmark that is multithreaded will make FX shine, it's the single-threaded benches is where it struggles which is the majority of workloads these days.
Posted on Reply
#14
ensabrenoir
Yes it does gonna get one instead of ivy..........what was this thread originally about?
Posted on Reply
#15
Bvanofferen
Geez Man, Piledriver improvments, quad channel memory on Vishera so how will it stack up to the 3820??? You would be the best man to elaborate.... Think Vishera will have what it takes to compete with the base 2011 chip?

I would go 2011 over Ivy for sure, if i needed the power, but even the fx-6100 is too much for me, for the price I paid I figured I would find something to use it for. I'm out to post more Hi-def Baby Video's to Facebook then anyone in history....:)
Posted on Reply
#16
Steevo
by: devguy
Maybe it's just me, but if I were looking at getting an APU laptop (wouldn't be overclocking it any), I wouldn't give a rat's ass about performance / clock (IPC). Performance / watt would be the only metric I'd look at, and if one chip gives me more performance with the same or less power used than another, I don't care if it needs an extra 10 Ghz to do it.

Granted, on the desktop where I would be wanting to overclock, that information about clock speed does become relevant. As an example, if processor A beats processor B by 10% when running at stock clocks, but can only overclock 3%, while B can be overclocked 25%, I'd be more inclined to pick processor B. So basically, if the Piledriver cores are clocked up high, and can't overclock much more, I'd pick the option that had the more headroom for ultimately more performance (Sandy vs Ivy is kind of in this situation right now). And IMHO on the desktop, performance / watt is not nearly as huge a concern.
What a absolute horrid idea. Perhaps you should get a Athlon and underclock it to 200Mhz so it lasts a few days.

IPC is the defacto measurement of performance, and low power consumption without performance to meet expectation is the reason we don't use such low power chips in anything.

Don't get all butthurt over AMD failing on the CPU aspect, considering Intel spends more per year on R&D and they started as a second source supplier to Intel the fact they are still around and making chips that perform as well as the (some) do is amazing.


I still like to tweak and play with them, its a hobby, and really unless you are trying to play the benchmark game AMD performs just fine, and no one will tell the difference.
Posted on Reply
#17
eidairaman1
Despite AMD pushing the IPC game back in early 2000, People were still looking at clock speeds, thats why AMD had the Model Numbers they did aka 2000-3200, and In fact overall feel of an Athlon XP was superior to a Pentium 4/Pentium D.

I feel the clock speed is what people still look at today or the higher or lower model numbers and prices. So if People can get an AMD for cheaper than an Intel they will go for it, Average Joe's are the Majority aka almost 99% of the Market the 1 percent is enthusiast, Aslong at it can turn on/off Play audio/video/ run the tasks they do or even play games they dont care about the CPU just its price.

by: Steevo
What a absolute horrid idea. Perhaps you should get a Athlon and underclock it to 200Mhz so it lasts a few days.

IPC is the defacto measurement of performance, and low power consumption without performance to meet expectation is the reason we don't use such low power chips in anything.

Don't get all butthurt over AMD failing on the CPU aspect, considering Intel spends more per year on R&D and they started as a second source supplier to Intel the fact they are still around and making chips that perform as well as the (some) do is amazing.


I still like to tweak and play with them, its a hobby, and really unless you are trying to play the benchmark game AMD performs just fine, and no one will tell the difference.
Posted on Reply
#18
Bvanofferen
The enthusiast is who the responsible novice calls to decide what to buy. And forums such as this is how we hammer out the facts so make your post count! And it's Okay to get a little butthurt as long as you learn something.
Posted on Reply
#19
eidairaman1
by: Bvanofferen
The enthusiast is who the responsible novice calls to decide what to buy. And forums such as this is how we hammer out the facts so make your post count! And it's Okay to get a little butthurt as long as you learn something.
most average joes dont even come to a tech forum either. they look at retailers for their stuff, sad but true
Posted on Reply
#20
Bvanofferen
We should sell old rigs in new cases with a lot of big numbers on them. This is the EXT9980S-hyper core
Posted on Reply
#21
Steevo
The 9850 AMD snot slinger. I had one. It was hot and mediocre. However it DID fit this motherboard as did the 940, and now 1100T that resides.
Posted on Reply
#22
eidairaman1
by: Bvanofferen
We should sell old rigs in new cases with a lot of big numbers on them. This is the EXT9980S-hyper core
and you know people would buy it actually:o
Posted on Reply
#23
ensabrenoir
by: eidairaman1
and you know people would buy it actually:o
Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu 20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont matter.....dont need that anti -germ stuff either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.;)
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
by: ensabrenoir
Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu 20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont matter.....dont need that anti -germ stuff either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.;)
Thats what Im getting at dude lol :laugh: :toast:
Posted on Reply
#25
Bvanofferen
by: ensabrenoir
Those who go for the cheapest available........specs dont matter....just give a 1.6 ghz cpu 20gig hdd and 512 ram for $250 please.....all that other crap dont matter.....dont need that anti -germ stuff either....ill just wipe it off with pine sol.;)
And then Vista gets butthurt:nutkick::cry:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment