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

AMD tapes out its Bulldozer CPU architecture

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by mdsx1950, Jul 19, 2010.

  1. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    [​IMG]
  2. Techtu

    Techtu

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,143 (1.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    499
    Location:
    In the night garden
    [​IMG]

    Back on track though...

    [​IMG]

    Any price point heard of for these new line-ups?
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  3. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,541 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    842
    I want to see stock clocked chips at 4+ ghz, even just 4 cores, I have no need for more than that, just give me sheer speed already.

    Having said that I really doubt AMD will be the first to throw a 4ghz stock clocker on the table, at least at the mainstream consumer grade.
  4. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,855 (8.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,413
    Well at least he went with honor! My condolences. Here in honor of your friend have a beer on me!

    [​IMG]
    WarEagleAU and DrPepper say thanks.
  5. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,741 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Bulldozer is meant to complete with Intel's next gen or some may call it Nehalen 2. So obviously if Bulldozer does not beat Core i7 then AMD has major issues. Bring it on SandyBridge, we need competition to help drive prices down into the dirt. :toast:
  6. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (3.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
  7. WhiteLotus

    WhiteLotus

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,530 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
  8. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree.;)
  9. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Wow, about time, been speculating on this with a tPU member or two and some personal friends. Cant wait to see what the prices and yields are. I would love to see just about most software now come out with at least dual cores in mind (if not quad cores). That would benefit greatly. Wonder if Windows 7 is optimized for Dual cores. Anyone know?
  10. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    Bah, waiting for tomorrow for news!

    Looking forward to this chip, if its decent price/performance I'm getting an AMD platform next year.

    Well unless their graphics turn out crappy next year.

    And vice versa <_< or both.
  11. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02/what-is-bulldozer/


    For those unaware, there is TONNES of info on the AMD website about these upcoming processors. When I said speculation is pointless, I really meant it.

    We can extrapolate on the info I posted here form AMD, and suggest that each new Bulldozer core will offer about 4% more performance, clock-for-clock. Hardly what people are looking for, and hardly an i7 killer. Again, I said it's two years too late, and I stand by that comment.
  12. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,107 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,123
    we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores.

    So for a example we will say the 12 core system can execute 1000 standard complex threads in one second. 1000/12= 83.33 per core. So now we have a standardized core work number.

    So they say that the new processor will do 1500 standard complex threads in once second. 1500/16=93.75 threads per core per second, or a 12.5 clock efficiency increase per core.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  13. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Flawed logic. Try your math again. Your numbers are not correct. Uh, let's start with 93.75-83.33....reversing the math give 151+%.



    I look at it this way... we added 33% more cores, but got 50% more performance. that leaves 17% extra performance, spread across 16 cores...;) I see your logic as interpreting the increase from only those extra 4 cores....
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2010
  14. largon New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    432
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    [rhetorical question]
    If a quad core processor "A" is 17% faster than quad core processor "B", then how much faster is processor "A" per core?
    [/rhetorical question]

    That's right. 17% increase per core would be really nice if you ask me.
  15. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    No doubt. I am expecting AT MOST 4& per clock...mind you, this core is so very different, that may be completely off-base.

    So, if we look at Steevo's numbers, he says 12.5, but really, he gets "12" and not "1.2" by using a 1000-base number for the calculation instead of 100-base.

    Anyway, it's more like 1.03% increase per core.
  16. largon New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    432
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    I reeeaaallly don't see why you're expecting that 4%.
  17. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Hoping. That is all.:laugh: If that's the case though, I'd be swapping out my server farm. I REALLY want to do this, so I gotta hope.
  18. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Looks like AMD may have some thing to finally bring to the table . Still I do not see myself getting a new system for another 3 years as well the Quad I have should be just fine for many more years to come . It would be nice to see AMD on top again but till I see some real chips tested no one can say for sure what Bulldozer will be able to do .
  19. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Yeah, and AMD is last presenter tomorrow @ HotChips. So the info is most likely NOT gonna be known until long after that. We need yeild info, and that is too far off..we won't get real performance until launch, next year some time. Would be nice to see a pre-holiday launch, but I think that's more wishfull thinking on my part.
  20. Techtu

    Techtu

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,143 (1.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    499
    Location:
    In the night garden
    No, not just on your part... seem's like pretty much all of us in this thread are wanting to see some results quicker than AMD can make them. :(
  21. Beertintedgoggles

    Beertintedgoggles

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    719 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    192
    I've got to agree with Steevo and his math on this one, well since it's right...

    Just clarifying his numbers using the 1000 threads per second example

    33% more cores: so 12 cores * 1.333333..... = 16 cores
    50% more performance: 1000 * 1.5 = 1500 threads per second

    So the old 12 core proc. would do 1000 threads per second while the new 16 core will do 1500 per second (threads of whatever, not relavent here... just some AMD spec'd performance numbers):
    that means old did 1000/12=83.33 threads per second per core
    new will do 1500/16=93.75 threads per second per core

    so that's 93.75 for the new and 83.33 for the old. To find the percentage increase that's 93.75/83.33=12.5% faster per core than the old architecture.

    Now I'm not sure if AMD's numbers are skewed and that 50% performance increase was more than likely on a specific test; however, going by those numbers they posted the math shows the new cores should be 12.5% faster per clock.
  22. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    I just hope the AMD fanboys wont get all upsad if they are not what they expect . Nut I sure hope AMD finally gets it right . My hope is they are going to at the very least mach the core i7's . that is a tall order seeing as AMD has been trying for years now .
  23. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,746 (4.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,782
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Again, flawed equation. If each core was 12.5% faster, there'd be more than 50% increase. 12.5%, times 16 cores= what? 200%? and 12 cores is 150%?


    Please. FIX. THAT. math.
  24. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree on that, there past two lineups have yet to truly past an i7. I'm hoping we will see a good resurgence with this architecture. As a person who doesn't cum my pants over a particular company(aka a fanboy), i truly won't be heartbroken if these chips don't succeed.
  25. Beertintedgoggles

    Beertintedgoggles

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    719 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    192
    Um, no there wouldn't. Simple math. Very simple in fact.

    You have a 50% increase with 33% more resources.

    You want to do it the easiest way:
    the old cpu had 1.00 (100% resources), new has 1.33 (33% more or 133%)
    old cpu did 1.00 work (100%), new does 1.50 (50% increase)

    That's now 1.5/1.33 = 1.125 ish. So still your 12.5% increase per core. AMD didn't use number of cores do denote how much faster they are, just 33% more cores make a 50% increase. The 12 and 16 cores I'm assuming were just pulled out since they make that 33% more a very convenient whole number. But still, if you think about it as 50% more work is done with only 33% added resources you can see that they should more than 4% faster. They should be 1.5/1.33 faster.

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

Share This Page