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

AMD Details Bulldozer Processor Architecture

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. naram-sin

    naram-sin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    103 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    That sounds amazing as well as incredible. Especially since NB is on CPU and a there is the A-link...:confused:

    I think I can already see a new problem here, with the drop-by readers. HT for Hyper Threading and not Hyper Transport... :D

    IMHO, but I don't think they should cram to much of their "legacy" tech inside this kind of novelty... I think that Bulldozer deserves a new platform from scratch...

    EDIT:
    I agree on the first part. :D

    On the second part, this is a kind of "paper (re)roll-out". So, only number that could come out is probably a number of slides from that presentation. :roll:

    But, I get you. I am also eager to see how (and where) this baby goes...
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2010
    wolf says thanks.
  2. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,543 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    842
    buddy you just got to get over that.

    on a lighter note, bring on the performance numbers! from all that info this chip sounds very promising, to many market segments.
     
  3. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    i only got this now. a bit slow
    i assumed nothing, i was mislead by AMD shitty roadmaps

    could you be anymore random scrub
     
  4. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Nope, we talked to AMD, they said it won't be backwards compatible. The way the chip is designed, it won't even theoretically work on platforms designed for K8/K10.
     
    AlienIsGOD, bear jesus and naram-sin say thanks.
  5. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    Well no one else was, they made it very clear the x6 processors would have backwards compatibility.

    There was a lot of news from board manufacturers as well saying basically saying " ours support x6 too LULZ!"

    It just seems you may of just missed everything we read.
     
  6. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,840 (5.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,617
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Weak argument, P35 and x38 chipset boards would still run 45nm chips with a simple BIOS update.
     
    AlienIsGOD and wolf say thanks.
  7. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    That's laughably misinformed.
     
    wolf says thanks.
  8. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    yeah most of the people taking up amd side are intel owners
     
  9. Kantastic

    Kantastic

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,156 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    993
    And this helps your argument how?
     
  10. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    it came out to support 1600fsb thats about it but there was still the die shinrk after so i see that as just
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2010
  11. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    Yeah your missing the point a bit, that was aimed at panic, he said he was mislead by AMD regarding 800 chip-set and the x6 processors.

    How ever I was saying there was lot of information to be accessed from various sources.
     
    naram-sin says thanks.
  12. naram-sin

    naram-sin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    103 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Yeah, I saw later that I did... and deleted the stupid post. :D

    But, I agree on the second one. Thanks for clearing that up.

    And I was just thinking about replying on his... issues too. Because this is getting out of hand and going seriously off-topic.
     
  13. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,840 (5.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,617
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Your ignoring the facts, your very argument about the 890 also applies to Intel equally, I have no particular loyality to either side, your attack on the 890, whilst in part justified, coupled by your defence of the x48 makes no sense, the x48 gave us a new and improved chipset with DDr3 support etc etc but was not a neccesity to run 45nm chips just like as you mentioned the 890 is not a neccessity, the 890 also brings some added enhancements....... all I am saying is there are definate similarities that you choose to overlook for the sake of your argument.
     
  14. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    but for what? 2 chips? intel had more then 30 after x48
     
  15. Bloodcrazz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    17 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I do agree with him. I also have this problem. I also got a AM3 socket knowing that AMD themselves quoted that the Bulldozer was going to be for AM3 socket.
    And knowing now that it will not be a AM3 socket has got me feeling like i got riped off.
    Its just like they said it for marketing purporses to sell AM3 cpu's, to make every one think theres a upgrade at the end of the year.
    Now there saying its not AM3.
     
  16. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,840 (5.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,617
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Your right there, but how many of them would run on an x48 and not an x38? I am not disagreeing with the argument, just the facts you have presented to support that argument, you are right, you just presented it wrongly if you get my meaning?
     
  17. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND

    Just how long did AMD maintain backwards compatibility ?


    Time to move on, this is the tech world we're talking about things go quickly.

    People will always be disappointed because something new comes out, it's just how things work with computers.

    Can you link me to where AMD said it would be AM3 by the way?

    I've been following bulldozer for a bit and certainly never read anything like that, although other sources did have rumours about the socket.

    I don't think AMD made any announcements at all.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  18. naram-sin

    naram-sin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    103 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Me to. I was under impression that the Bulldozer will be settled on LGA1207 or Socket F, even from first announcements... Definitely not AM3. And this i besides the point. Completely new architecture demands new components and interfaces, it's nature's law. Just hope this situation won't resemble of that when we had s754 and s939, that's all.

    Meaning, I think it would be of greater use to focus all of resources on new platform, and completely abandon further development of old ones. No matter how much pennies is there to gain on old inventory. Maybe new lithography will help on this, what with lower costs and higher yield...
     
  19. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    amd stated many times that it will be am3r2
     
  20. Bloodcrazz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    17 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Hear is a link.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
     
  21. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    x48 also had a close to 2 year life span not 9 months
     
  22. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,543 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    842
    show me the links. with no links your just ranting.

    that link is moot, wikipedia isn't a statement from AMD, nor does the reference list show a link to AMD officially stating it will be on the AM3 socket.
     
    suraswami says thanks.
  23. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND


    I think you guys misunderstood me, can I have a link to a page were AMD or a representative of AMD stated that it will be a AM3 or a variation of AM3?
     
  24. PaNiC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    theres has been a few press conference/computer shows where they have said this. just google it
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/2
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2010
  25. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,553 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    857
    It's your argument you google it.


    If this is a new socket, wonder if they will change cooling attachment design?


    And also I am loving this "modular" design, that mean they can have numerous types of the processor, all at different prices. Say a low end one wouldn't have much but a top end would have everything. Or am I missing the point?
     
    wolf says thanks.

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

Share This Page