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

AMD Details Bulldozer Processor Architecture

That sounds amazing as well as incredible. Especially since NB is on CPU and a there is the A-link...:confused:

I think I can already see a new problem here, with the drop-by readers. HT for Hyper Threading and not Hyper Transport... :D

IMHO, but I don't think they should cram to much of their "legacy" tech inside this kind of novelty... I think that Bulldozer deserves a new platform from scratch...

EDIT:
wolf said:
buddy you just got to get over that.

on a lighter note, bring on the performance numbers! from all that info this chip sounds very promising, to many market segments.
Click to expand...

I agree on the first part. :D

On the second part, this is a kind of "paper (re)roll-out". So, only number that could come out is probably a number of slides from that presentation. :roll:

But, I get you. I am also eager to see how (and where) this baby goes...
 
Last edited:
PaNiC said:
Really why did AMD bring out 890fx chipset, just for the shitty 1090t it was nothing the 790fx couldn't handle. you ripped off customers and you don't have enuf to do that . i hope your shitty chip sucks.
FUCK YOU AMD
Click to expand...

buddy you just got to get over that.

on a lighter note, bring on the performance numbers! from all that info this chip sounds very promising, to many market segments.
 
pantherx12 said:
Pfffft you assumed to needed it no one else :laugh:
Click to expand...

i only got this now. a bit slow
i assumed nothing, i was mislead by AMD shitty roadmaps

I hope a mod deals with your stupid ass soon, all your doin is annoying ppl and calling AMD shit when you should be calling yourself that you little troll
Click to expand...

could you be anymore random scrub
 
mastrdrver said:
Just a heads up but Lost Circuits is reporting that Bulldozer will be backward compatible with AM3.

You might just want to wait until later today when AMD makes their speech at Hot Chips to see if they verify this.
Click to expand...

Nope, we talked to AMD, they said it won't be backwards compatible. The way the chip is designed, it won't even theoretically work on platforms designed for K8/K10.
 
Well no one else was, they made it very clear the x6 processors would have backwards compatibility.

There was a lot of news from board manufacturers as well saying basically saying " ours support x6 too LULZ!"

It just seems you may of just missed everything we read.
 
PaNiC said:
X48 realsed for the die shink core 2 65nm to 45nm and got bunch of new chips
.
Click to expand...

Weak argument, P35 and x38 chipset boards would still run 45nm chips with a simple BIOS update.
 
pantherx12 said:
Well no one else was, they made it very clear the x6 processors would have backwards compatibility.

There was a lot of news from board manufacturers as well saying basically saying " ours support x6 too LULZ!"

It just seems you may of just missed everything we read.
Click to expand...

yeah most of the people taking up amd side are intel owners
 
btarunr said:
That's laughably misinformed.
Click to expand...

it came out to support 1600fsb thats about it but there was still the die shinrk after so i see that as just
 
Last edited:
I think that you are talking about Magny-Course as one being compatible to AM2(+), as well did they, the mnfcts... And this is Bulldozer, right? From the slides you can see that they are presenting it on 8-core processor. Or am I missing a point...?
Click to expand...

Yeah your missing the point a bit, that was aimed at panic, he said he was mislead by AMD regarding 800 chip-set and the x6 processors.

How ever I was saying there was lot of information to be accessed from various sources.
 
pantherx12 said:
Yeah your missing the point a bit, that was aimed at panic, he said he was mislead by AMD regarding 800 chip-set and the x6 processors.

How ever I was saying there was lot of information to be accessed from various sources.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw later that I did... and deleted the stupid post. :D

But, I agree on the second one. Thanks for clearing that up.

And I was just thinking about replying on his... issues too. Because this is getting out of hand and going seriously off-topic.
 
PaNiC said:
it came to support 1600fsb thats about it but there was still the die shinrk after so i see that as just
Click to expand...

Your ignoring the facts, your very argument about the 890 also applies to Intel equally, I have no particular loyality to either side, your attack on the 890, whilst in part justified, coupled by your defence of the x48 makes no sense, the x48 gave us a new and improved chipset with DDr3 support etc etc but was not a neccesity to run 45nm chips just like as you mentioned the 890 is not a neccessity, the 890 also brings some added enhancements....... all I am saying is there are definate similarities that you choose to overlook for the sake of your argument.
 
Tatty_One said:
Your ignoring the facts, your very argument about the 890 also applies to Intel equally, I have no particular loyality to either side, your attack on the 890, whilst in part justified, coupled by your defence of the x48 makes no sense, the x48 gave us a new and improved chipset with DDr3 support etc etc but was not a neccesity to run 45nm chips just like as you mentioned the 890 is not a neccessity, the 890 also brings some added enhancements....... all I am saying is there are definate similarities that you choose to overlook for the sake of your argument.
Click to expand...

but for what? 2 chips? intel had more then 30 after x48
 
Originally Posted by PaNiC
Really why did AMD bring out 890fx chipset, just for the shitty 1090t it was nothing the 790fx couldn't handle. you ripped off customers and you don't have enuf to do that . i hope your shitty chip sucks.
FUCK YOU AMD
Click to expand...

I do agree with him. I also have this problem. I also got a AM3 socket knowing that AMD themselves quoted that the Bulldozer was going to be for AM3 socket.
And knowing now that it will not be a AM3 socket has got me feeling like i got riped off.
Its just like they said it for marketing purporses to sell AM3 cpu's, to make every one think theres a upgrade at the end of the year.
Now there saying its not AM3.
 
PaNiC said:
but for what? 2 chips? intel had more then 30 after x48
Click to expand...

Your right there, but how many of them would run on an x48 and not an x38? I am not disagreeing with the argument, just the facts you have presented to support that argument, you are right, you just presented it wrongly if you get my meaning?
 
Bloodcrazz said:
I do agree with him. I also have this problem. I also got a AM3 socket knowing that AMD themselves quoted that the Bulldozer was going to be for AM3 socket.
And knowing now that it will not be a AM3 socket has got me feeling like i got riped off.
Its just like they said it for marketing purporses to sell AM3 cpu's, to make every one think theres a upgrade at the end of the year.
Now there saying its not AM3.
Click to expand...


Just how long did AMD maintain backwards compatibility ?


Time to move on, this is the tech world we're talking about things go quickly.

People will always be disappointed because something new comes out, it's just how things work with computers.

Can you link me to where AMD said it would be AM3 by the way?

I've been following bulldozer for a bit and certainly never read anything like that, although other sources did have rumours about the socket.

I don't think AMD made any announcements at all.
 
pantherx12 said:
...
Can you link me to where AMD said it would be AM3 by the way?

I've been following bulldozer for a bit and certainly never read anything like that, although other sources did have rumours about the socket.

I don't think AMD made any announcements at all.
Click to expand...

Me to. I was under impression that the Bulldozer will be settled on LGA1207 or Socket F, even from first announcements... Definitely not AM3. And this i besides the point. Completely new architecture demands new components and interfaces, it's nature's law. Just hope this situation won't resemble of that when we had s754 and s939, that's all.

Meaning, I think it would be of greater use to focus all of resources on new platform, and completely abandon further development of old ones. No matter how much pennies is there to gain on old inventory. Maybe new lithography will help on this, what with lower costs and higher yield...
 
pantherx12 said:
Just how long did AMD maintain backwards compatibility ?


Time to move on, this is the tech world we're talking about things go quickly.

People will always be disappointed because something new comes out, it's just how things work with computers.

Can you link me to where AMD said it would be AM3 by the way?

I've been following bulldozer for a bit and certainly never read anything like that, although other sources did have rumours about the socket.

I don't think AMD made any announcements at all.
Click to expand...

amd stated many times that it will be am3r2
 
pantherx12 said:
Just how long did AMD maintain backwards compatibility ?


Time to move on, this is the tech world we're talking about things go quickly.

People will always be disappointed because something new comes out, it's just how things work with computers.

Can you link me to where AMD said it would be AM3 by the way?

I've been following bulldozer for a bit and certainly never read anything like that, although other sources did have rumours about the socket.

I don't think AMD made any announcements at all.
Click to expand...

Hear is a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(processor)
 
Tatty_One said:
Your right there, but how many of them would run on an x48 and not an x38? I am not disagreeing with the argument, just the facts you have presented to support that argument, you are right, you just presented it wrongly if you get my meaning?
Click to expand...

x48 also had a close to 2 year life span not 9 months
 
PaNiC said:
amd stated many times that it will be am3r2
Click to expand...



I think you guys misunderstood me, can I have a link to a page were AMD or a representative of AMD stated that it will be a AM3 or a variation of AM3?
 
wolf said:
show me the links. with no links your just ranting.



that link is moot, wikipedia isn't a statement from AMD, nor does the reference list show a link to AMD officially stating it will be on the AM3 socket.
Click to expand...

theres has been a few press conference/computer shows where they have said this. just google it
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/2
 
Last edited:
It's your argument you google it.


If this is a new socket, wonder if they will change cooling attachment design?


And also I am loving this "modular" design, that mean they can have numerous types of the processor, all at different prices. Say a low end one wouldn't have much but a top end would have everything. Or am I missing the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top