Wednesday, December 14th 2011

AMD Gives Bulldozer 6-core a Speed-Bump with FX-6200

AMD launched its AMD FX processor family with two eight-core parts (FX-8150, FX-8120), a six-core part (FX-6100), and a quad-core one (FX-4100), apparently a newer, slightly faster six-core FX processor is just around the corner, the FX-6200. Since all AMD FX processors are unlocked out of the box, the FX-6200 is essentially a speed-bump. Out of the box, it is clocked at 3.80 GHz, with 4.10 GHz maximum TurboCore speed. It features six cores, 6 MB total L2 cache, and 8 MB total L3 cache. Its TDP is rated at 125W. In a presentation to retailers sourced by DonanimHaber, AMD pitched the FX-6200 to have about 10% higher performance at Mainconcept HD to Flash conversion, than the FX-6100 (3.30 GHz nominal, 3.90 GHz max. turbo).
Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

79 Comments on AMD Gives Bulldozer 6-core a Speed-Bump with FX-6200

#51
blibba
seronx
Your ideology is flawed
Lol what? What exactly do you think my ideology is? How is this relevant?

In case you're confused, here's the relevant OED definition of "ideology":

"A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics, economics, or society and forming the basis of action or policy; a set of beliefs governing conduct."

seronx
When two modules are used you have a higher throughput thus seemingly higher FPS but you then get blockade by the slowest cache
So do you get higher FPS, or not?

seronx
Windows 7 sees Bulldozer correctly it has 8 normal cores
It has 8 "normal" cores, split into modules of two, with each module sharing a large number of resources, such that two cores from two modules have better performance in many applications than two cores from one module. Agree or disagree?

seronx
Windows 8 will just fix the problem of legacy programs show when a new architecture is introduced that changes the number of decoders
Source? If so, we'd see the same performance gain from Windows 8 with Phenom II as we do with Bulldozer (when using legacy applications). Incidentally, I wouldn't describe some of the applications in which BD gets a performance boost in Windows 8 as legacy.

Also, just to zoom out a little here, is your main point that Bulldozer is just a conventional 8 core processor? If so, why does it scale so terribly in some multithreaded tasks? Everyone else's answer is shared resources between cores bottlenecking the modules, and this is backed up by AMD's own accounts of their own architecture.
Posted on Reply
#52
seronx
blibba
So do you get higher FPS, or not?
You get higher FPS but you won't get stability if you have other modules requiring L3 Cache space, when you have two cores being used in the same module you probably won't have instability as they will only use up to the L2 cache


blibba
It has 8 "normal" cores, split into modules of two, with each module sharing a large number of resources, such that two cores from two modules have better performance in many applications than two cores from one module. Agree or disagree?
Disagree

Only 20% of resources are being shared the only problem that can occur is from the code of the program not having alignment to the instruction fetch and instruction decode which will cause problems

2(New apps) vs 3(Legacy apps)
You have bleed with World of Warcraft but instant the bleed is fixed you will see higher FPS with a module vs 2 modules

blibba
Source? If so, we'd see the same performance gain from Windows 8 with Phenom II as we do with Bulldozer (when using legacy applications). Incidentally, I wouldn't describe some of the applications in which BD gets a performance boost in Windows 8 as legacy.
Only applications that are legacy will see the boost...

Source still thinks Bulldozer is K10 which has 3 decoders just like Sandy Bridge pretty much
and that is what AMD is using to show of Windows 8 improvements...legacy applications..
Posted on Reply
#53
blibba
It doesn't matter what % of resources are being shared if they're causing the holdup.

Furthermore, you respond to very few of my questions in a satisfactory manner - perhaps because English isn't your first language, in which case that isn't something I'd hold against you.

Because of this and because you're so massively out of kilter with what every other expert is saying (notice how I generously offer you an implied compliment there), I'm going to wait for you to back all this up with a credible source.
Posted on Reply
#54
seronx
blibba
It doesn't matter what % of resources are being shared if they're causing the holdup.
They aren't causing a hold up...they are working properly

blibba
Furthermore, you respond to very few of my questions in a satisfactory manner - perhaps because English isn't your first language, in which case that isn't something I'd hold against you.
English is my first language... This forum isn't important so I type fast and pretty much leave after thirty mins and I just finished walking the dog, doing my workout, taking out the trash, and vacuuming my house...so my arms are hurting right now

blibba
Because of this and because you're so massively out of kilter with what every other expert is saying (notice how I generously offer you an implied compliment there), I'm going to wait for you to back all this up with a credible source.
http://www.amdzone.com , http://www.semiaccurate.com .

and thanks for the implied compliment

Well first off if you are getting 70 fps @ 2560x1600 .... and Windows 8 only gives you 9 fps you probably won't be able to see it since the monitor is 60Hz....

If you are waiting for Windows 8 you might as well wait for Piledriver which will have up to ~8 IPC uplift and up to ~8 Clockrate uplift(per core)
Posted on Reply
#55
blibba
seronx
They aren't causing a hold up...they are working properly


seronx
http://www.amdzone.com , http://www.semiaccurate.com .
I said credible :P Besides, you could at least link the actual articles you think disprove the Bulldozer module bottleneck theory.

seronx
Well first off if you are getting 70 fps @ 2560x1600 .... and Windows 8 only gives you 9 fps you probably won't be able to see it since the monitor is 60Hz....
This isn't really the point, is it? As explained above, the point is not WoW performance, the point is that one setup is faster than another under certain (common) conditions.

seronx
If you are waiting for Windows 8 you might as well wait for Piledriver which will have up to ~8 IPC uplift and up to ~8 Clockrate uplift(per core)
Me? Hell, I'm not in the market for a CPU or an operating system. Even if I was, I'd probably be looking at an i3 - in the absence of a 32nm K10 or equivalent.
Posted on Reply
#56
seronx
blibba
I said credible :P Besides, you could at least link the actual articles you think disprove the Bulldozer module bottleneck theory.
You have to look at the forums and look for several dudes they usually post past me and before me...

blibba
This isn't really the point, is it? As explained above, the point is not WoW performance, the point is that one setup is faster than another under certain (common) conditions.
Well again completing something in 20 seconds(2M/2C) or completing something in 22 seconds(1M/2C) is relatively unimportant when the guy making the application which has something complete in 20 seconds or 22 seconds to optimize his application for Bulldozer and make the unknown but common workload complete in 18 seconds(1M/2C) is more worth while than saying because CMT is a balanced design we have to go back to CMP which is a over provisioned design and will run slightly better than a balanced design because there is more resources in a over provisioned design.

blibba
Me? Hell, I'm not in the market for a CPU or an operating system. Even if I was, I'd probably be looking at an i3 - in the absence of a 32nm K10 or equivalent.
32nm K10 is Llano...and it has a better GPU than the i3....
Posted on Reply
#57
blibba
seronx
32nm K10 is Llano...and it has a better GPU than the i3....
Aye, but it's not really a good successor to the Phenom II - it's aimed at a different market, and you can see that from the platform, too.

Also, I don't want to pay more than I have to for an integrated GPU I'll never use.

What I really meant is a Phenom II 32nm for the AM3+ platform.

As it happens, I run a C2D and an HD6850 (I won both or I'd have older hardware), and I play all the new games I want to maxed out at 2048*1152, and that's the only demanding thing my PC ever does. So, if I was to be forced to replace it, I'd just want a PC that does all the same as cheaply as possible (idle power consumption being a factor in cost). That probably means picking up an £80 GTX460 or equivalent and an i3, atm. This post is seriously off topic, though :P
Posted on Reply
#58
seronx
blibba
What I really meant is a Phenom II 32nm for the AM3+ platform.
Well Phenom II 32nm 8C on the AM3+ will be 2x slower than Sandy Bridge 4C in single thread workloads and 2x slower than Sandy Bridge-E 8C in multithread

Orochi-FX at least gets near the 4C in single thread I think it is more around 1.3-1.5x and multithread is about 1.6-1.75x

---
I forgot to mention this but FX-6100 -> FX-6200 is completely going to bug me out...(one day seronx will check newegg and see 6200 PILEDRIVER OUT NOW?! oh wait it is just that processor...)
Posted on Reply
#59
blibba
Given that Phenom II 45nm wasn't even outperformed by 100% by SB, I don't see how you can say that Phenom II 32nm would be (I'm assuming that the jump to 32nm would yield higher clock speeds or at least better power efficiency). Current FX processors are even further behind SB in single threaded workloads (and some multi-threaded workloads) than the Phenom X6 was.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=288

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=434

The first link shows the top Phenom II 4C being outperformed by less than 100% by the top SB 4C/4T.

The second link shows the top Phenom II 6C outperforming Bulldozer in a few single threaded tasks and very much holding its own in many multithreaded tasks. Take a look at single threaded Cinebench, for example.
Posted on Reply
#60
seronx
blibba
Given that Phenom II 45nm wasn't even outperformed by 100% by SB, I don't see how you can say that Phenom II 32nm would be (I'm assuming that the jump to 32nm would yield higher clock speeds or at least better power efficiency). Current FX processors are even further behind SB in single threaded workloads (and some multi-threaded workloads) than the Phenom X6 was.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=288

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=434

The first link shows the top Phenom II 4C being outperformed by less than 100% by the top SB 4C/4T.

The second link shows the top Phenom II 6C outperforming Bulldozer in a few single threaded tasks and very much holding its own in many multithreaded tasks. Take a look at single threaded Cinebench, for example.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=363

It isn't always 2x but majority of the time you will be near 2x

Fallout 3 near 2x
WinRAR near 2x
Par2 near 2x
Blender near 2x
FLV Creation near 2x
R10 ST/MT near 2x
Adobe CS4 near 2x

Other than a lot of programs don't support FMA4/AVX/XOP "-march:bdver1" thus you aren't really seeing full IPC with Bulldozer while alot of programs show support for AVX for SB "-QxAVX"
While plenty of programs show support for /archSSE3 and /marchSSE3

Full SB, Full K10, Half BD isn't really fair game
Posted on Reply
#61
etayorius
I wont upgrade my PhenomII 810 to ShitDoZer untill AMD hits 4Ghz without Turbo and TDP lowers just a bit.
Posted on Reply
#62
blibba
seronx
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=363

It isn't always 2x but majority of the time you will be near 2x

Fallout 3 near 2x
WinRAR near 2x
Par2 near 2x
Blender near 2x
FLV Creation near 2x
R10 ST/MT near 2x
Adobe CS4 near 2x
In most of those, if you look at the numbers, it's closer to 1.5x. Huge difference between that and 2x. And those are the most extreme examples. Actually, some of what you list is closer to 1.3x.

seronx
Other than a lot of programs don't support FMA4/AVX/XOP "-march:bdver1" thus you aren't really seeing full IPC with Bulldozer while alot of programs show support for AVX for SB "-QxAVX"
While plenty of programs show support for /archSSE3 and /marchSSE3

Full SB, Full K10, Half BD isn't really fair game
Well it is fair game if those are the applications that you're going to use. If my CPU is slow because software doesn't take full advantage of it, my CPU is still slow.
Posted on Reply
#63
JustaTinkerer
I am honesty sick BD bashing....though i keep reading, anyone running windows 8 full time?
No....oh why is that i hear the folks calling....!
Cos its not retail and it doesnt fix s**t, BD is what it is right now live with it

I picked up my FX-8120 for £125 on sale here, no longer on sale (look hard enough) because of the reviews and bad press no doubt.
Anyone able to tell me if I can get an Intel for the same cash that does the same job.
I recode, game, compress, jeez a bit of everything?

I don't care about AMD vs Intel (last processor was a Intel) all anyone who call's themselves an overclocker should care about is price vs performance.

FX owners that adopted early I do feel for.

Windows 8 is not the FX fix, its just a pipe dream, if you think windows 8 will fix everything like a fairy godmother then you are mistaken.
By the time it comes out retail Intel will have stepped the game up 2 levels....is FX going to "come in to its own" .....we can only wish...well cinders did get to the ball i suppose :D
Posted on Reply
#64
blibba
JustaTinkerer
Windows 8 is not the FX fix, its just a pipe dream, if you think windows 8 will fix everything like a fairy godmother then you are mistaken.
Afaik nobody thinks that.

Also, grats on the bargain. Asking others to match that is a little harsh, though.

There are Phenom II x6s and socket 1366 i7s in that price range very occasionally, both of which are comparable on performance.
Posted on Reply
#65
seronx
blibba
In most of those, if you look at the numbers, it's closer to 1.5x. Huge difference between that and 2x. And those are the most extreme examples. Actually, some of what you list is closer to 1.3x.
You have input the Intel CPU has a longer pipeline and wins most of the time... pushing it even more towards 2x


blibba
Well it is fair game if those are the applications that you're going to use. If my CPU is slow because software doesn't take full advantage of it, my CPU is still slow.
Most applications don't care about ISAs but most benchmarks do

In most cases in the native environment some of these applications won't exist
(x87, MMX, 3dnow!, SSE(64bit) can't exist in x86-64, in x86-64 you have to use SSE2,SSE3,SSE4,SSE5(AVX+FMA+AVX2+Gather+XOP)

In most music conversion you see MMX and SSE being most used...while in 64bit applications of music conversions you see SSE4 being used the 64bit music converter is faster than the 32bit music converter but the 32bit version is still being more used...

Consumers = Relatively Stupid....in these cases

Smart Consumers like myself know to wait for applications to use the new ISAs before jumping boat or listening to non-important reviewers trying to persuade unsmart consumers in making dumb decisions
Posted on Reply
#66
Mussels
Moderprator
Zubasa
What you need to consider is that everything 96W and up must be marked with the 125W TDP envelope.
thank you for pointing that out. people always think these wattage numbers are set in stone, when really its just what envelope they fit into.
Posted on Reply
#67
Thefumigator
Zubasa
What you need to consider is that everything 96W and up must be marked with the 125W TDP envelope.
So we really don't know how much more power does it use with a ~15% clock increase.
So until a full review is up we won't know if there are any improvements.
Except llano, 100W

JustaTinkerer
I am honesty sick BD bashing....though i keep reading, anyone running windows 8 full time?
No....oh why is that i hear the folks calling....!
Cos its not retail and it doesnt fix s**t, BD is what it is right now live with it

I picked up my FX-8120 for £125 on sale here, no longer on sale (look hard enough) because of the reviews and bad press no doubt.
Anyone able to tell me if I can get an Intel for the same cash that does the same job.
I recode, game, compress, jeez a bit of everything?
The thing isn't bad, it just sells well anyway. I'm also sick of BD bashing, but hey, you have to be honest, we expected more. I actually expected to be comparable with i7, but hey its not far. Also guess what? You could get a G34 board and put a 16 core bulldozer or 12 core bulldozer, yeah, the ones appeared in newegg, 6 modules way cheaper than the 8 modules one, I'm planning building one for myself to make a heavy multitasker on the cheap. Also if the board is dual G34 you don't have to fill both sockets to make the thing run, and this is great.
Posted on Reply
#68
Mussels
Moderprator
Thefumigator
Except llano, 100W
the power envelopes are set per socket. llano is FM1, bulldozer is AM3+


AM3+ follows the same wattage envelops as AM2/2+/3, which is 65, 95, 125.

if its 96W or above, it has to be specified as 125W.
Posted on Reply
#70
entropy13
[H
@RD5TUFF]seems rather pointless
Only in the sense of comparing them with other processor series, whether from AMD or Intel. It populates the Bulldozer line-up quite well however. It's when you go beyond them that things doesn't go "well", to put it mildly. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#71
nt300
Are we finaly done with the pissing contest. Now I should get myself a 8 core Dozer.
Posted on Reply
#73
ViperXTR
and i heard intel is outing the i5 2550K this christmas? >_>
Posted on Reply
#74
Zubasa
etayorius
I wont upgrade my PhenomII 810 to ShitDoZer untill AMD hits 4Ghz without Turbo and TDP lowers just a bit.
The FX-4100 can easily go pass 4Ghz already, it is actually a decent upgrade for the PII 810 aka C2 Phenom IIs.
Not to mention memory performance is a crap load better. The IMC on the old 810 is bottle-necking even DDR3 1600.
Posted on Reply
#75
blibba
seronx
You have input the Intel CPU has a longer pipeline and wins most of the time... pushing it even more towards 2x
Either a CPU gives performance results 2x faster, or it doesn't. Contrary to your earlier suggestion, in the examples that you give, it doesn't.

seronx
Most applications don't care about ISAs but most benchmarks do

In most cases in the native environment some of these applications won't exist
(x87, MMX, 3dnow!, SSE(64bit) can't exist in x86-64, in x86-64 you have to use SSE2,SSE3,SSE4,SSE5(AVX+FMA+AVX2+Gather+XOP)

In most music conversion you see MMX and SSE being most used...while in 64bit applications of music conversions you see SSE4 being used the 64bit music converter is faster than the 32bit music converter but the 32bit version is still being more used...

Consumers = Relatively Stupid....in these cases

Smart Consumers like myself know to wait for applications to use the new ISAs before jumping boat or listening to non-important reviewers trying to persuade unsmart consumers in making dumb decisions
Most of the most demanding programs I use (and will use I would think for at least another few years) are represented (by themselves or very similar programs) in that table.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment