AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface

[rem82]

Originally Posted by heky

Sources? I dont think anyone knows for sure what the new buldozer architecture is made of.

Bulldozer module has:

one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache

Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K

Yes , 8-core Bulldozer is a true 4-core chip with excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology !!! Not true 8-core !!

Bulldozer architecture is very elastic !! That is the power and secret for bulldozer ... 2x128bit FMAC or 1x256bit FMAC or 4x64bit !!!

[heky]

Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers and why does AMD call it a 8 core proc? Intel doesnt call the 2600K a 8 core.

Real cores for real men my ass then!

[rem82]

Originally Posted by heky

Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers and why does AMD call it a 8 core proc? Intel doesnt call the 2600K a 8 core.

Real cores for real men my ass then!

1) Βecause the extra logical core (HT) has CACHE !!!!
2) Because has two integer scheduler !!

This chip will be very good in performance/per watt !!!

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by heky

why does AMD call it a 8 core proc?

Marketing hype? I think AMD have said that they are going to market them as modules rather than cores.

[heky]

Originally Posted by rem82

This chip will be very good in performance/per watt !!!

We will see about that. But it better deliver, its about time.

[rem82]

Originally Posted by heky

Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers!

Νow you have six cores in 1100t. When you run a single thread application one core run and the others sleeping.

With bulldozer architecture 2 X 128 FMAC are linked in 1x256bit fmac in this application !! Double performance with the same number of transistors (double performance per watt) !!!! All this in clock to clock comparison but bulldozer is 32nm architecture with higher clock at the same TDP ! Pc mark cannot show you the difference !!!

When you run multi thread applications FPU can be 4x64bit for better performance !!
That is elastic architecture !!!!!

Bulldozer has not IGP inside and must be more overclock-able than sandy. I think for the same reason this chip will have better default clocks than sandy in the same TPD ......... We learn in a month.

You must wait for applications benches and real benches!!!! That is a projection

[heky]

Nice, thanks for the info. Now it will be even harder to wait and see the real world comparison against the 2600K.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by MrMilli

Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.

A module is not a core, and AMD doesn't call a 4-module chip a quad-core. They're for all intents and purposes marketed as eight-core. So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.

[rem82]

Originally Posted by heky

Nice, thanks for the info. Now it will be even harder to wait and see the real world comparison against the 2600K.

For me , Ι5 2600Κ and four module bulldozer will have the same performance , but AMD will deliver us better platform !!

AM3+ platform will have many lanes for CROSSFIRE & SLI !!!!(both x16 pci-e), true native SATA III for all sata and will be more future proof ! That is the deference between 1155 & AM3+ .

For people how want IGP, there is 980G chip in AM3+ with HD4250 or better IGP with sideport technology.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by rem82

Yes , 8-core Bulldozer is a true 4-core chip with excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology !!! Not true 8-core !!

Not according to AMD. It is an 8 core chip.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by btarunr

. So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.

Which has HT that gives about 25% extra performance for each thread, so its more like a 6core.

[rem82]

Originally Posted by btarunr

A module is not a core, and AMD doesn't call a 4-module chip a quad-core. They're for all intents and purposes marketed as eight-core. So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.

A module = two cores ???? No .....

There is no distinguishable deference between logical and physical cores in this season.

Υου don`t remain in words. AMD speak for 8-cores and Intel for Hyper transport+ 4-cores ... So what ??

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by Melvis

Which has HT that gives about 25% extra performance for each thread, so its more like a 6core.

No, it does not. Intel does not call them 6-core chips.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by btarunr

No, it does not. Intel does not call them 6-core chips.

Did i say it was a 6 core chip??? NO, i said it acts more like a 6 core since it has four HT cores does it not?

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by rem82

A module = two cores ???? No .....

There is no distinguishable deference between logical and physical cores in this season.

No, a module = [something the end user shouldn't care about].

The end user is shown core count, not thread count. The core count is 8.

Originally Posted by Melvis

i said it acts more like a 6 core since it has four HT cores does it not?

It acts like a 4-core chip with 8 threads. There's no way to show that it acts like a 6-core chip, since there is no 6-core Sandy Bridge chip.

[Jonap_1st]

it's better if they honestly said it was 4 core with unbelieveable compute power rather than just said it has "native" 8 cores..

[btarunr]

8 core. No threads, no modules.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by btarunr

It acts like a 4-core chip with 8 threads. There's no way to show that it acts like a 6-core chip, since there is no 6-core Sandy Bridge chip.

Yea there is because it does NOT give a 100% increase in performance for each extra thread, there for as stated by intel it will give you around 25% increase. So add that on top of the original 4cores you would get something like real 6 core performance.

[rem82]

Originally Posted by btarunr

No, a module = [something the end user shouldn't care about].

The end user is shown core count, not thread count. The core count is 8.

Bulldozer module has:

one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache

Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K

If a module has 2-core , it must have

two FETCH
two DECODE
two FPU
two Integer scheduler
two L2 Cache for module.
two L1 instruction cache

AMD speak for 8-core because the logical core inmodule has & hardware structure = integer

[rem82]

[Nesters]

Well, it's 8-core processor but you can hardly call them REAL cores.
8 integer units doesn't mean they're real cores because the resources are shared between two of those.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by rem82

Bulldozer module has:

one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache

Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K

If a module has 2-core , it must have

two FETCH
two DECODE
two FPU
two Integer scheduler
two L2 Cache for module.
two L1 instruction cache

AMD speak for 8-core because the logical core inmodule has & hardware structure = L2 CACHE

That argument doesn't fly. AMD doesn't refer to a module as a core, it maintains that "each module is a set of two cores", and its four module chips are marketed as 8 core. Not "4 module" or "4 core/8 thread".

[naoan]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

it's better if they honestly said it was 4 core with unbelieveable compute power rather than just said it has "native" 8 cores..

nah, it would be easier to market higher core counts than "unbelievable compute power" to mass market.

[rem82]

Originally Posted by btarunr

That argument doesn't fly. AMD doesn't refer to a module as a core, it maintains that "each module is a set of two cores", and its four module chips are marketed as 8 core. Not "4 module" or "4 core/8 thread".

I cant tell you why amd refer this chip as 8-core but if you see the architecture, you can understand me !

Marketing trick ? No.
8-cores? No !
Something like 1,3 core per module (two integer)? Yes!

[Frick]

Originally Posted by ivicagmc

With even lower budget they manage to beat Intel before. Remember???

Intel was kinda stagnated then so no suprise here. They're at a whole other level now.