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

Why BD failed? AMD Ex-Employee speaks out!

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Kantastic, Oct 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Horrux

    Horrux New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    734 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    This horror of truth gives me hope for piledriver. Even AMD should be able to fix that some, and increase performance, or decrease its size, or increase cache, or put a quad-channel DDR3 controller on there without increasing its size... SOMETHING DAMMIT. Or is it DAAMIT?
  2. bucketface

    bucketface New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    142 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    ok well is this good enough...
    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/sandybridge/review/die.jpg
    almost no wasted space, seriously AMD could take some pointers from just analysing this image.
    i'm not hating, just dissapointed and would like to see AMD actually bring something competitive to the game.
  3. Horrux

    Horrux New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    734 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    ^^^
    Wow. That's beautiful. And this is coming from not so much an AMD fan as an Intel-hater.
  4. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    889 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    i really don't know why is that space named "wasted" as no reviewer got the dye schematics in detail from AMD; can you point one? as i i think is still under NDA or unknown...
  5. bucketface

    bucketface New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    142 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I'm not a fan of any company, i do however like and try to support the underdog... unfortunately AMD is making it rather hard to do so at the moment. I really do hope that they manage to iron out the problems by the time Steamroller comes because thats when i'm looking to make my next big upgrade. until then i think i'll just get a 1055t.

    i wouldn't know i'm no expert after all, I am making some assumptions based off a limited knowledge of these things. That "wasted" space just looks like it's just being used to link bits up, maybe it's doing more though.... I think only some AMD engineers would know exactly what it's for, thing is SB has almost none of it and seems the better for it, saving a considerable amount of diespace.

    Edit*
    actually theres alot of die area used for the hypertransport bus, NB, misc I/O and mem controller, i guess about 400mill transistors. compared to SB's IO, etc which looks to be maybe 150mill transistors?.
    i'm thinking it's all for compatability with AM3(+) socket.
    Anyway this is all just my wild speculations.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  6. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,246 (10.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Maybe you should take comments better? He wasn't trying to troll you.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  7. NdMk2o1o

    NdMk2o1o

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,443 (2.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    921
    Location:
    Redditch, Worcestershire, England
    He blatantly was for 3-4 of his last post and i'm not the only one who thinks so by the looks of things, however I am sure that qubit will gladly listen to what you have to say in PM/GN instead of bringing the thread off topic yet again.
  8. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,246 (10.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    I was just stating the obvious.

    Back on track then... Bulldozer will need to go through drastic changes on die to combat the effects it is getting publicly. As another member has mentioned before is that AMD had plenty of time to benchmark bulldozer to intel SB chips for a while now.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. alexsubri

    alexsubri New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Why can't we all just get along?



    anyways, I am more anxious to see AMD FX-8170 come out, I doubt it will consume less power, but I want to see it's performance against the FX-8150. Wasn't it stated that FX-8150 was more of a server and desktop CPU? I don't know if I am saying this correctly.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  10. Horrux

    Horrux New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    734 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Yes, it looks like AMD pulled the design directly from server parts. Always a bad move, but AMD is on a budget.
  11. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,989 (2.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,084
    The best thing AMD could do is to pull out 2/3 of their cache and put in a logic co-processor to do more branch prediction and thread handling at the hardware layer, run it 2X the core speed and love the results.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  12. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,738 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    537
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Does this require a complete design overhaul? If not perhaps they may do something with Piledriver to change the playing field.
    nt300 says thanks.
  13. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,989 (2.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,084
    Design? Perhaps, depends on the hardware already in place and if they have room to add extra traces to interface between parts. If not does it really matter? The chip sucks at hardware level now, what could possibly make it worse?

    They could have just added two more cores to the X6 and been better off with the die shrink.


    There comes a point in time where you just have to call a turd a turd, and no amount of polishing will make it a gold nugget.
    qubit says thanks.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  14. HalfAHertz

    HalfAHertz

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,831 (1.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Location:
    Singapore
    [​IMG]

    See those 4 HT links? They're used for inter-socket communication in 2 and 4 socket server configs. So yes it is safe to say that BD was a purely server centric design from the get go.
  15. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    27,678 (11.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,418
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Good luck doing that with 2 billion transistors.

    See these two QPI links?

    [​IMG]

    They are for daisy-chaining two/multiple LGA1366 sockets, when this silicon is used in Xeon 3000 or 5000 series. In 1P/Core i7 series, Link 1 is rudimentary.

    Just like AMD's silicon. Both AMD and Intel design common silicon for their enterprise and client products.
    Chevalr1c and nt300 say thanks.
  16. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,819 (4.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,468
    Why did Bulldozer underwhelm?

    Here's a couple of articles from Charlie Demerjian with a technical breakdown as to why Bulldozer is so "meh", as he puts it.


    Part 1


    Part 2

    Reading both parts makes for depressing reading. The last paragraph of part 2 especially so:

    Super XP, Horrux and nt300 say thanks.
  17. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    I've been away too long. When people plug in there FX 8150 or any Bulldozer CPU it does what it was meant to do right. I don't see calling something that is factually innovative a turd. Yes Bulldozer definitely needs some fine tuning and polishing, which is why we all hope Piledriver offers the performance Bulldozer was suppose to offer.

    AMD's previous design is old and needs to be dumped into the garbage. What they need to do now is focus on making Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator the design it was meant to be for high performance desktop chips.
    Super XP says thanks.
  18. Horrux

    Horrux New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    734 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    But aren't Intel's i7 direct descendants of the original Pentium Pro of 12 years ago?
  19. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    Well it's not really ''factually innovative'', if it was innovative it wouldn't be as crappy as it is. Granted, i do commend them on trying a new design, i'm glad they tried something different instead of tweaking the K10 design over and over.

    I just hope they improve BD soon.
    Super XP and Damn_Smooth say thanks.
  20. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    You and me both man. I don't mind skipping BD, but I hope something comes out that runs on AM3+ and is decent. ASAP.
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  21. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,145 (13.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,596
    Yes, let's build an awesome innovative car of the future and sell it. It's slow and can't really drive on many roads but let's sell it anyways. People will buy it right up, they love our cars.
    Steevo and CDdude55 say thanks.
  22. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,397 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,475
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    meh. if they could up clocks to 4.6 GHz, 5.0GHz turbo on air..that'd be good eonugh, no? That seems realisitic with process refinements, anyway. PhenomII 955 to 980 went about that far, but did take quite some time.
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  23. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,247 (3.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,018
    Like Citroën..
    Steevo says thanks.
  24. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,989 (2.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,084
    You Fanboi !!!!!!

    Wait, what?....


    Intel did jump back 4 YEARS in CPU design to what they were doing with Pentium 3 to make the leap forward to "Core". AMD had a good design with 5-7% slower IPC with K8, then they fucked it up with Phenom, and not just refining the existing design.


    The best car analogy to the new "FX" is the old 4-6-8 GM engines, they were never quite sure which cylinder to fire, so either they fired them all, or none. Good idea, but one about 20 years too soon for the actual production. Same way here, lets step back and make a bold statement.

    90% of users would rather have a 6Ghz high performance dual core.


    Wait, what....... most software is only written for 1-2 threads? Well, we are onto something here. By dammed, instead of changing the reads for the cars, lets change the cars for the road.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  25. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,738 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    537
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    You mean from the Pentium 3. Don't know why Intel released the crapy Pentium 4 when the Pentium 3 was 100x much better. Then Intel finally scrapped the P4, took the P3 and with innovation created the Conroe, and now we have the i7's

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page