1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Bulldozer, Llano Pricing Surface

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, May 23, 2011.

  1. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    889 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    So when does the NDA get lifted? Tired of reading comments about who is better. Let w1zzard do the tests and than we can argue.
     
  2. inferKNOX

    inferKNOX

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    904 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Location:
    SouthERN Africa
    I know this isn't Monopoly, but if the performance is within acceptable margins, "I'm buying!":rockout:
    Come on 8130P, don't you dare disappoint!!
     
  3. Widjaja

    Widjaja

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,819 (1.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    639
    Location:
    Wangas, New Zealand
    IF the initial pricing is at stated, this is good news.
    I was expecting to see stupid crazy prices similar to the last FX series with the 939 sockets.
     
  4. rem82 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    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 TREADING 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 !!!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2011
  5. Imsochobo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    514 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    I live in Norway, in the province Buskerud.

    Hypertransport.. I think you confusing hyperthreading, its almost a true 8 core but its not almost hyperthreading alike, inbetween, great aproach anyhow.
    Excited to see if it delivers, I don't want to replace all my servers in my datacenter, they are currently running amd cpu spec for clustering.
    I use all my old gaming rigs for servers, and if the new is compatible with the old it'd be marvelous. :D

    Like reasoning behind the Bulldozer core. Especially the fact that they share the FP pipe between two int pipes. It is also good to relieve most of the FP against many small cores in the future rather than running it in FAT-cores.

    But again fetch decode can lead to greater latencies...

    We all have to be patient and wait... and see..
    there is alot amd can improve with this design in 2nd gen bulldozer when AM4 comes around. this design can probably do alot of magic!

    less than a month!
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2011
  6. Jonap_1st

    Jonap_1st New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    288 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    South Green Jakarta
    calm down brother :toast:

    i said octo-cores doesn't mean i really care about core counts. i'm just repeated the lines from what i've been read..

    heck, since i already knew the prices. i'm sure i dont have a right anymore to complain about it :)
     
  7. rem82 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Hyperthreading I wanted to write.
     
  8. mcloughj

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    307 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    if these chips had reverse hyperthreading they would have made mega gaming chips... oh well!
     
  9. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    What do you mean?
     
  10. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,212 (4.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,995
    Location:
    Home
    I was discussing about "reverse hyperthreading" some time ago, long story short its not going to work. Uses too many cycles in moving the data around.

    If people takes full advantage of the stream processors of Llano, will that cause Llano to take a massive lead in encoding and other massively parallel computing tasks compared to Bulldozer? I have a feeling that Bulldozer's days in consumer market are numbered even before launch due to Llano and Sandy Bridge.
     
  11. mcloughj

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    307 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    long story short: make a multicore chip act like a single core, with all the cores focused on the one task. Since most games were until recently not multi-core optimised, having a quad or octo core acting as a single core would be very fast for some apps.

    But only theoretically as Fourstaff pointed out. :)
     
    Damn_Smooth says thanks.
  12. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    889 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    Anyone care to share the release date?
     
  13. Imsochobo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    514 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    I live in Norway, in the province Buskerud.
    ~20th june

    Midjune, mobo's come 19th-21th somewhere there. not long till ;)
     
    heky says thanks.
  14. TheGrapist

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    516 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Location:
    Northern California
    yay,hopefully i'll have all my stuff sold by then so i can afford it :eek:
     
  15. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,543 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,314
    Look at how long it has taken us to get open CL, and yet so few real world applications use it. I don't think that X86 and the small amount of X64 computing is going away soon. It will take a large leap of whole operating systems supporting it, applications, and even consoles supporting it before it becomes mature.


    It is only the leading edge of where this tech is going though, as we hit the limit of how small we can make a transistor and how many are required I believe it will take a large change in software and coding to take advantage of the next few major milestones in hardware progression. Memory, interface speed and fetching from datastores are the limiting factor. What good is 8 cores if we can't keep them fed data, what good are they when four have stalled? Higher clock speed will only help so much, and more cores does not directly relate to actual speed.


    I truly hope AMD is working on the next, next tech and is using the CPU's they haven't sold to simulate the CPU and iron out the wrinkles.
     
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  16. _JP_

    _JP_

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684 (1.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    740
    Location:
    Portugal
    Alright, so it's the FX-6110 for me.
     
  17. wahdangun

    wahdangun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,512 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    114
    Location:
    indonesia ku tercinta
    its impossible to do that, it will just the same as multi threading single application.

    @ fourstaff: but SNB doesn't support openCL. So it will take a while
     
  18. bucketface

    bucketface New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    142 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    but isn't that with tradional cores not the highly integrated cores of bulldozer. I would have thought that it should be relativly easy to get a single threaded app to run on a "module" as if it were a single "core" utilising both integer clusers as a single "large core", similar to how the fpu can apparently function as a single 256b, 2 128b, or 4 64b.
    ps.
    it would be great if i could get an explanation as to why this is undesirable, if that is the case.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2011
  19. largon

    largon

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,782 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    Wouldn't it be nice if there was a quadcore part that has all four modules enabled but without SMT, instead of two modules with SMT.
    [​IMG]
     
  20. faramir New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    203 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    You mean via OpenCL and similar interfaces ? I'm positive enthusiasts who decide to go the Bulldozer route are more than likely to pair their new CPU with AMD's graphics (something vastly more powerful than Llano's 400 shaders, of course) which is going to have this same parallel computing functionality but on a far larger scale.

    Llano is about bringing adequate performance for money, conveniently tucked into a nice single package (well and the PCH ;) ). It isn't nearly as powerful nor flexible as the combination of Bulldozer + whatever GPU you want is going to be.
     
  21. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    You must be missing what I am saying. The pricing seems to suggest that 8130 is going to be close in performance to the 2600. 8130 is an 8 core, the 2600 is 4 cores with HT. This tells me that Bulldozer has less performance per core than Intel, which, in turn, tells me AMD most likely won't have anything to compete with Intel when they release their new 6 and 8 cores.

    Again, I hope I'm wrong. I want an all out war in the $1000 uber-cpu market.
     
  22. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,154 (1.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    466
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Refer to rem82's post. The 2600k and 8130 are pretty damn similar on paper, so depending on how well the architecture works, they should be about equal in term's of price\performance.
     
  23. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    If that post is truth, then it does fair much better, but then how many modules can they put on a chip (and why call them true cores if they are not)? Intel plans 8 cores with hyper threading, iirc. Will there be 16 "core" Bulldozers?

    But price/performance is not what I am concerned with. I am only concerned with performance per core per clock (and OC ability).

    Guess we'll have to wait and see.
     
    [H]@RD5TUFF and heky say thanks.
  24. [H]@RD5TUFF

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    5,615 (3.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ocoto cores are over priced, should be $260-275, especially since they are not real octo cores and simply hexa cores pretending to be 8 cores. But it will all depend on performance, if they are anything less than faster than a 2600K, and not capable of 5ghz on air then AMD really hasn't succeeded, also there is something to be said when it takes 8"cores" to compete with a 4 core chip. :roll:
     
  25. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,620 (1.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    376
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    TRUE, but there is also that old argument used back when C2Q came and the Phenom's were on their way. C2Q's weren't true quads, phenom's were, so AMD used that for marketing(till the flop :p). Now to the average joe that just looks at boxes comparing numbers, AMD could say "we prefer to use 8 cores, a core for each task so to speak, whereas Intel uses 4 core's to do those 8 tasks, which isn't as efficient, eh ehm."

    either way, it can be twisted to benefit the other company. Also, is the integer unit the main component in a CPU or something? if it is, they could pull some crazy twisted saying like "each of our core's is like 75% of intel's, however if you add it up, we have 600% performance and intel only 400%, that's 200% more processing power". the retard lines i can pull outa me ash, yet to the general public it'd fly:banghead:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page