AMD Bulldozer Eng. Sample leaked, benched

[seronx]

According to the article it was Oc to 4GHz same as the OC on the Intel chip

It's an ES

It's most likely multiplier locked

it can be any of these 3 stock clocks

2.8 3.0 3.1 vs 990X 4.0

 

[Mussels]

well geez, you be nice enough to leave peoples comments that didnt break any rules behind and you cop shit over it.


time to clean this thread up a bit further then, my apologies to people who came here to read about bulldozer.


edit: done. Those involved know not to continue their previous 'discussion'

 

[TheMailMan78]

Anyway I hear that BD should be out by the end of August. I can't wait to see the benches! I don't mind a little slower then Sandy as long as its within 10% performance and 50% of the price

 

[Mussels]

personally i dont care if BD is slower than SB, its about the pricing.


a lot of people dont realise there are two kinds of performance - per core/thread (EG, one core vs one core, which is faster) and COMBINED power, where it could be 8 BD cores vs 4 SB cores w/ HT.

if you're gaming where single threaded performance is still key, they SB may lead - but once you start running more and more background tasks simultaneously like i do (say, encoding H264 MKV files) then the CPU with the more cores and greater overall performance becomes the far better choice.


If BD and SB (mobo + CPU + ram combos) are equal priced and it varies depending on what tasks you do, then thats fine. there is a balance.

but if BD is 10% slower and 15% cheaper... well, we know what will be popular for the masses.

 

[TheMailMan78]

personally i dont care if BD is slower than SB, its about the pricing.


a lot of people dont realise there are two kinds of performance - per core/thread (EG, one core vs one core, which is faster) and COMBINED power, where it could be 8 BD cores vs 4 SB cores w/ HT.

if you're gaming where single threaded performance is still key, they SB may lead - but once you start running more and more background tasks simultaneously like i do (say, encoding H264 MKV files) then the CPU with the more cores and greater overall performance becomes the far better choice.

Thats always been the case of multi-tasking and encoding. Hell if its i7 performance in single threaded apps Ill be happy. Remember the Phenom II used to tickle the feet of the i7 in some benches and beat it in others and the Phenom II architecture is almost 10 years old.

But its all about price.

 

[seronx]

Thats always been the case of multi-tasking and encoding. Hell if its i7 performance in single threaded apps Ill be happy. Remember the Phenom II used to tickle the feet of the i7 in some benches and beat it in others and the Phenom II architecture is almost 10 years old.

But its all about price.

Sad piece...

Performance doesn't go up...

Bulldozer is basically just shrinking Phenom II

But the way the components are arranged are a lot different

But come out the same way

Single thread performance is linear

Multi thread performance is exponential

Bulldozer 1C 100% Performance
Bulldozer 8C 1120% Performance

 

[TheMailMan78]

Sad piece...

Performance doesn't go up...

Bulldozer is basically just shrinking Phenom II

But the way the components are arranged are a lot different

But come out the same way

Single thread performance is linear

Multi thread performance is exponential

Bulldozer 1C 100% Performance
Bulldozer 8C 1120% Performance

I'm a little confused by this post. Please clarify.
You start off saying it will flop then end it with exponential?

 

[repman244]

Sad piece...

Performance doesn't go up...

Bulldozer is basically just shrinking Phenom II

But the way the components are arranged are a lot different

But come out the same way

Single thread performance is linear

Multi thread performance is exponential

Bulldozer 1C 100% Performance
Bulldozer 8C 1120% Performance

Shrinked Phenom II?! Sorry but that is not true, it is totally redesigned and has nothing to do with Phenom II whatsoever.

 

[seronx]

I'm a little confused by this post. Please clarify.
You start off saying it will flop then end it with exponential?

Architecturally looking at 1 core you are looking at phenom II

but if you look at it at a whole the more cores utilized the more performance

Bulldozer in theory should technically equal Phenom II

But there is a 33% increase in performance do to rearranging the resources

The 2nd core in the module does something "weird" when in use it doesn't increase performance like a 2nd CMP core would do

Single thread to Dual thread applications
CMP: 100% -> 200%
CMT: 100% -> 280%

This is due to the balanced nature of Bulldozers CMT

Shrinked Phenom II?! Sorry but that is not true, it is totally redesigned and has nothing to do with Phenom II whatsoever.

It is Phenom II but the way everything is done is rearranged

K7 -> K8 -> K10 all looked the same because they were the same

K15 looks different because it uses a more balanced method it has to balance resources between two balanced Phenom II cores and two balanced FPUs(Fused into 1 by FMA4/XOP/CVT16)

 

[TheMailMan78]

Architecturally looking at 1 core you are looking at phenom II

but if you look at it at a whole the more cores utilized the more performance

Bulldozer in theory should technically equal Phenom II

But there is a 33% increase in performance do to rearranging the resources

The 2nd core in the module does something "weird" when in use it doesn't increase performance like a 2nd CMP core would do

Single thread to Dual thread applications
CMP: 100% -> 200%
CMT: 100% -> 280%

This is due to the balanced nature of Bulldozers CMT



It is Phenom II but the way everything is done is rearranged

K7 -> K8 -> K10 all looked the same because they were the same

K15 looks different because it uses a more balanced method it has to balance resources between two balanced Phenom II cores and two balanced FPUs(Fused into 1 by FMA4/XOP/CVT16)

Thanks for clearing that up!

Do you have links to where it shows the cores being the same as the Phenom?

 

[repman244]

It is Phenom II but the way everything is done is rearranged

K7 -> K8 -> K10 all looked the same because they were the same

K15 looks different because it uses a more balanced method it has to balance resources between two balanced Phenom II cores and two balanced FPUs(Fused into 1 by FMA4/XOP/CVT16)

Bulldozer is a totally new design and it is not just rearranged Phenom II design. In fact BD doesn't use 2 cores but it uses a module (within a module there are 2 "cores" and I could be wrong but those 2 "cores" share the integer part, no?)

And what exactly is the balanced method we are talking about here?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Bulldozer is a totally new design and it is not just rearranged Phenom II design. In fact BD doesn't use 2 cores but it uses a module (within a module there are 2 "cores" and I could be wrong but those 2 "cores" share the integer part, no?)

And what exactly is the balanced method we are talking about here?

Thats kinda the way I understood it. Thats why I asked for a link to see where he got this other info from.

 

[Red_Machine]

Well, Bulldozer could be based on the Phenom II as the Core series was based on the Pentium III. There's a lot of differences, but the architecture is basely a die-shrink with NetBurst bolted on and a few enhancements and additions over the years.

 

[repman244]

Just to clear this up a bit: http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02/the-bulldozer-blog/

A random quote:

Our next generation core architecture, a complete new design from the ground up, is called “Bulldozer.”

 

[seronx]

Thanks for clearing that up!

Do you have links to where it shows the cores being the same as the Phenom?

Bulldozer is a totally new design and it is not just rearranged Phenom II design. In fact BD doesn't use 2 cores but it uses a module (within a module there are 2 "cores" and I could be wrong but those 2 "cores" share the integer part, no?)

And what exactly is the balanced method we are talking about here?

First quote comment, I think the guy who made the FPU portion of Phenom II had a photo bomb, how did that Bulldozer FPU get there!!!

Thats kinda the way I understood it. Thats why I asked for a link to see where he got this other info from.

Well, Bulldozer could be based on the Phenom II as the Core series was based on the Pentium III. There's a lot of differences, but the architecture is basely a die-shrink with NetBurst bolted on and a few enhancements and additions over the years.

Just to clear this up a bit: http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02/the-bulldozer-blog/

A random quote:

It isn't exactly Phenom II, Each core without including the possibility of "CMT" performs exactly like Phenom II

Phenom II Core 0 over-provisioned with resources(1/3rd to many)

Bulldozer Core 0&1 uses the same resources (But it is balanced between both of the cores its a 1 to 1 ratio instead of a 1.33 to 1 ratio of the Phenom II)

2 Phenom II cores has 2.66x resources

2 Bulldozer core has 2x resources(1 Bulldozer core also has 2x resources as resources are shared between the cores)

It's fixing Phenom II but it is Phenom II in a way

It is an 8-core Phenom II but it is shrunk

If AMD made an 8-core Phenom II it would be 800% big

Bulldozer shrunk that 8-core Phenom II to 600% big

Edit: furk I got Phenom II picture and another phenom II picture

Edit2: All these leaks and talks about the Bulldozer are all so old....2007->2009 come on.....

 

[repman244]

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/hotchips2010/bulldozeruarch.jpg

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/hotchips2010/p2uarch.jpg



First quote comment, I think the guy who made the FPU portion of Phenom II had a photo bomb, how did that Bulldozer FPU get there!!!







It isn't exactly Phenom II, Each core without including the possibility of "CMT" performs exactly like Phenom II

Phenom II Core 0 over-provisioned with resources(1/3rd to many)

Bulldozer Core 0&1 uses the same resources (But it is balanced between both of the cores its a 1 to 1 ratio instead of a 1.33 to 1 ratio of the Phenom II)

2 Phenom II cores has 2.66x resources

2 Bulldozer core has 2x resources(1 Bulldozer core also has 2x resources as resources are shared between the cores)

It's fixing Phenom II but it is Phenom II in a way

It is an 8-core Phenom II but it is shrunk

If AMD made an 8-core Phenom II it would be 800% big

Bulldozer shrunk that 8-core Phenom II to 600% big

Edit: furk I got Phenom II picture and another phenom II picture

Edit2: All these leaks and talks about the Bulldozer are all so old....2007->2009 come on.....

Well what is it now?

Bulldozer is a 4 module CPU and has nothing to do with Phenom II (let alone shrink of Phenom II), the so called "cores" are designed from ground up (and yes the "core" is smaller than Phenom II's core), but using BD "core" and comparing it with Phenom's Core a performance analysis is for me a no-go, there are just too many changes/variables here.

Until we get some proper numbers this is all pretty much useless.

 

[seronx]

Well what is it now?

Bulldozer is a 4 module CPU and has nothing to do with Phenom II (let alone shrink of Phenom II), the so called "cores" are designed from ground up (and yes the "core" is smaller than Phenom II's core), but using BD "core" and comparing it with Phenom's Core a performance analysis is for me a no-go, there are just to many changes/variables here.

Until we get some proper numbers this is all pretty much useless.

It is and it isn't

AMD marketing may say its a completely new design but it is a Phenom II redesigned, simplified and pushed into a small space and made to do work like a sweat shop where the

Phenom II had a luxurious open office with slouching workers, Bulldozer is a compact sweat shop with no slouching workers

Where Phenom II wasted resources and didn't use workers alot(.33% resources and workers were not used)

Bulldozer uses all resources and workers efficiently(0% resources and workers will not be used)

Phenom II = Over-provisioned
Bulldozer = Well balanced

Edit: That image I showed...it doesn't show the second unified integer/memory unit thingy

 

[Thatguy]

`Seronx bulldozer IS NOT PHENOM II stop spreading FUD

 

[TheMailMan78]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3553/bulldozer5.png

It is and it isn't

AMD marketing may say its a completely new design but it is a Phenom II redesigned, simplified and pushed into a small space and made to do work like a sweat shop where the

Phenom II had a luxurious open office with slouching workers, Bulldozer is a compact sweat shop with no slouching workers

Where Phenom II wasted resources and didn't use workers alot(.33% resources and workers were not used)

Bulldozer uses all resources and workers efficiently(0% resources and workers will not be used)

Phenom II = Over-provisioned
Bulldozer = Well balanced

Edit: That image I showed...it doesn't show the second unified integer/memory unit thingy

I think the point people are trying to make man is we all know this isn't a new X86. That we know. What it is however is a redesign. Even your own graphs confirm this.

Now.....how it will work? Who the hell knows at this point.

 

[seronx]

I think the point people are trying to make man is we all know this isn't a new X86. That we know. What it is however is a redesign. Even your own graphs confirm this.

Now.....how it will work? Who the hell knows at this point.

My prediction is it will work within 25% -> 75% more performance


At worst the 8C Bulldozer(2007):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+@+3.30GHz
At 50% prediction(2009):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+@+3.40GHz
At 75%, If you follow the trail every 2 years since BDs development started in 2005 25% more performance:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+995X+@+3.60GHz

 

[Thatguy]

My prediction is it will work within 25% -> 75% more performance


At worst the 8C Bulldozer(2007):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+@+3.30GHz
At 50% prediction(2009):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+@+3.40GHz
At 75%, If you follow the trail every 2 years since BDs development started in 2005 25% more performance:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+995X+@+3.60GHz

stop with your "predictions" tell intel marketing I siad HI

 

[seronx]

stop with your "predictions" tell intel marketing I siad HI

Well the first 2 aren't my predictions actually...

2007 AMD said 33% more performance over Barcelona...I tuned that down to 25%
^Anandtech

2009 Industrial Engineers who knew the architecture said 50% more performance over Barecelona+
^ Donhambier whatever

 

[Red_Machine]

Stop with the bullshit. wiat for benchs. Intel paying well these days ?

Do you accuse everyone of working for Intel?

 

[repman244]

Well the first 2 aren't my predictions actually...

2007 AMD said 33% more performance over Barcelona...I tuned that down to 25%
^Anandtech

2009 Industrial Engineers who knew the architecture said 50% more performance over Barecelona+
^ Donhambier whatever

Is that 50% more per core or...?

Stop with the bullshit. wiat for benchs. Intel paying well these days ?

It's called speculating and discussing

 

[Tatty_Two]

Well the first 2 aren't my predictions actually...

2007 AMD said 33% more performance over Barcelona...I tuned that down to 25%
^Anandtech

2009 Industrial Engineers who knew the architecture said 50% more performance over Barecelona+
^ Donhambier whatever

Thats not really a prediction, thats a ballpark quote, a 25% - 75% performance increase statement (or prediction) pretty much tells me that noone has any idea of how much it will be better and is only marginally better than saying 0 - 100%, which in the end pretty much does make it speculative.

Had to tidy this up again, if some of you guys cant squabble with class then don't squabble at all.