NC37Hmm. So they'll still sell Llano alongside Trinity. Curious to see the performance difference.

I just hope they don't get lost in a sea of number revisions. Hopefully they'll focus on the initial model. They seem to have done away with the triple core A6 so that is one potential issue down.

Hustler"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."


Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:

HustlerGreat, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:

Hustler"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."

Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:

Andy77IPC wasn't the only downfall Bulldozer had... there were others, probably due to it being a late architecture picked up from the cellar. What PD will make up in performance won't be just based on IPC.

robalStill, it is a disappointment.

devguyHmm, no FX 8170 or any supposed B3 Bulldozer processors on the roadmap. I guess they're going straight to Piledriver.

AMD may be using TMSC after 2013, though it does depend on which can produce better yields.

This is a well written article, good job. Also, AMD hired an IBM Processor Engineer within closed doors to assist in ensuring that Piledriver performs the way it was meant to, for massive multi-tasking and the ability to outperform the Phenom II line by as much as 50% to 70%. But not in a clock for clock senario due to both designs being quite different.
Take that with a grain of salt. Piledriver has been fixed well enough to replace the complete Bulldozer line. There is no more Enhanced Bulldozer, only Piledriver. AMD wants to leave Bulldozer behind them from what I was told.

Yo_Wattup*yawn*

TRWOVI think skipping Zambezi B3 and going straight to Piledriver is a good move. Better spend those precious resources on the optimized core.

TRWOVBulldozer modules have a pair of "cores" so no tri-core is possible.

naoanIndeed, there's this increased power consumption/performance compared to even Phenom II, oh wait...

seronxTwo cores
Four cores
Eight cores

The Bulldozer family module can have any number of cores and tri-core is possible but not logical

mastrdrverNo.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.

mastrdrverNo.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.

seronxThe FX series has the same power/performance compared to Phenom II in the same usage of threads

xenocideWell every review had different power numbers because the FX-8150 was largely inconsistent when it came to power draw. It did seem to use at least as much power as Phenom II's did, which is the complete opposite of Intel where each line seems to use less power...

DrunkenMafiaI can't say I am going to be excited over this piledriver considering how much hype was around BD launch..

seronxYou can disable cores...

Power gating is allocated to each core and the module(You can have either the whole module turned off or have one or the other core turned off)

Super XPJust like seronx you can disable 1 core per module.

The headliner here, though, is the use of power gates for each of the modules.......