show me that a q6600 is no good now

[Shambles1980]

Ivy-E has 6 cores and 12 threads. Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads. And the 8150 is a native 8 core CPU. And Haswell -E will have 8 cores 16 threads

thats nice to know but im kind of funny...
i look at this..

and i see 4 blocks with 2 modules in each sharing the same everything. to me thats a quad spilt mechanically and not true 8 core. with 4 caches "not 8"

then this power 7 ibm is an 8 core if you ask me..

again compared to the bulldozer floorplan..

i know a lot of people will argue its true 8 cores. but i can plainly see its a quad with some trickery. (to me the big give away is the 4 sets of L2/3 rather than 8)
Just like the i7..

4 cores.. but hyper threading..

i honestly cannot call the bulldozer 8 cores. like i cant call an i7 8 cores.
i never saw the floor plan of the xenon 8 core. but if its 16 threads then it has to be 8 cores with Ht.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Maybe the people swapping chips have experience with a variety of chips, therefore can actually make a good recommendation.

I fix and own a progression of pc types and my reasoning is based largly on experience but my rig'S are what they are.

 

[Dent1]

its not that im not sold on 8 cores.. truth is nothing is truley 8 cores.. Amd have their way and intel have HT
so right now To me. a 8 core 8xxx is quad core with a form of HT . And a I5 is a quad core and an i7 is a quad core with hyper threading.

This is incorrect. AMD 's architecture has genuine cores within.

It's only Intel's hyper threading which uses the concept of virtual cores, which is essentially software performing two threads per core.

i opted for amd because i believed they could have preformed better than they did, but im not one of these people that buy something that sux then pretends i did the right thing and all is well and im super happy with it.

It's OK. You don't have to justify your decision. I'm not saying necessarily which CPU to buy.


Edit:

Shambles, going by the charts above, it shows the i7 with only 4 cores. Hence why it's a genuine quad core. The hyper threading element cant be seen as its virtual. it doesn't exist in the physical.

The Bulldozer in that chart shows 8 cores. So Bulldozer isn't a octocore because it had 8 cores in the chart? Your logic is flawed.

 

[Shambles1980]

ok i decided i would edit the floor plan that the buldozer has a to show you "not accuratley" what it would need to look like for me to call it 8 core.

please compare it to the real floor plan posted above.

undoubtedly i would then be told its 16 cores though because it has 8 modules..

however im sure im not the only person in this world that looks at the real floor plan and sees a 4core cpu.

 

[Dent1]

ok i decided i would edit the floor plan that the buldozer has a to show you "not accuratley" what it would need to look like for me to call it 8 core.

please compare it to the real floor plan posted above.

undoubtedly i would then be told its 16 cores though because it has 8 modules..

however im sure im not the only person in this world that looks at the real floor plan and sees a 4core cpu.

Who made you qualified enough to say what is an is an 8 core architecture looks like?

You can remove each of the 8 cores within the 2 modules. You can touch it and feel it. So its a real 8 core processor. You can't do that with Intel, because 4 of them are logical not physical.

 

[Shambles1980]

you can look at the floor plan and see that there is no way you can split 1 module in to 2 and come out with 2 identical cores..
draw a line through any of the modules any where you want and you cant make 2 identical or mirror images of the other half..

but like i said the main giveaway is the number of blocks of cache.
as shown with the true 8 core ibm power each core has a block of cache.
and even the i7 has 4 blocks 1 for each core although they are shared.
where as the buldozer only has 4.. so its a quad with trickery..

 

[Dent1]

you can look at the floor plan and see that there is no way you can split 1 module in to 2 and come out with 2 identical cores..

What are you talking about. You can clearly see 4 modules, each module with 2 physical cores.

 

[Shambles1980]

i clearly see 4 modules, that you cannot split in to 2 mirror or exact images of them selfs (one in each corner) although each module is exactly or a mirror image of the next module just like a core
and 4 sets of cache

i dont see how its anything other than quad..

 

[Jetster]

Just because they share cash does not mean they don't exist. I see 8 cores

 

[Dent1]

i clearly see 4 modules, that you cannot split in to 2 mirror or exact images of them selfs (one in each corner) although each module is exactly or a mirror image of the next module just like a core
and 4 sets of cache

i dont see how its anything other than quad..

You mean that each module is like a traditional dual core?

Except with L3 cache linking them together?

 

[Shambles1980]

ok il try again..
for me to call it 8 cores each module would look like this..

Which you can see in my edited floor plan..
where as each module atcually looks like this..

With all the best will in the world i cant call that 2 cores in 1 module..
i would however let you call it a much better design for a single core though..

because its a single core with twice as many pipelines..

 

[Jetster]

Anyway the i5 2500K in gaming when overclocked will beat the 8150

 

[Dent1]

With all the best will in the world i cant call that 2 cores in 1 module..

Why not, are you saying those two cores are not physical? They don't exist? Its a figment of our imagination?

Or are you saying that those two cores are broken and cant do any arithmetic and logic?

 

[Shambles1980]

im saying that one module is 1 core with 8 pipelines.. because everything els is shared.
instead of having 2 true cores like in the 1st pic.
there is a HUGE difference.
but it is a better way to Hyper thread, provided you had 2 of those in each module.
But then you would argue its 16 cores because it can do 16 threads..

thats just how i see it though. (im sure many many others do too) call me a purist if you want.

 

[Dent1]

im saying that one module is 1 core with 8 pipelines.. because everything els is shared.
instead of having 2 true cores like in the 1st pic.
there is a HUGE difference.
but it is a better way to Hyper thread, provided you had 2 of those in each module.

Incorrect. Each core per module is independent, hence why each has its own independent L1 reserve. The resources CAN be shared optionally (L2).

But then you would argue its 16 cores because it can do 16 threads

Incorrect. The FX 8xxx only supports 1 thread per core. So its 8 thread total.

I can't believe you made a CPU purchase over the last few days without even understanding AMD's product.

 

[Shambles1980]

i cant believe that you think that module is 2 actual cores.
the ONLY things not shared in that module is the scheduler and the pipe lines.
Fp scheduler is shared.
fmac shared And halved compared to having 2 real cores.
fetch shared
decode shared.
only one L2 per module instead of 1 per core (so halved again)

how can you say it has 2 real cores in the module when it blatantly only has 1 with twice as many pipelines?

I dont understand how having the correct amount of 1 thing for 2 cores. then halving the amount of 2 other things and sharing everything els makes it 2 cores.

hey i have 2 oranges here. well i cut them both in half and and i kept 2 of the 8 segments from the parts i discarded, but hey its still 2 oranges in amd land even though if i tried to put them back together id have 1 orange, 4 pipe lines and a scheduler.. because the rest of the orange isn't here.
(pipe lines and the scheduler would be the 2 segments not discarded btw in case you missed it

 

[Dent1]

i cant believe that you think that module is 2 actual cores.

It's not just me that thinks this, this is actual fact, documented in on many technology articles and websites, as well as AMD's very own technical specification.

Why should be believe you, rather than the facts written by professionals?

 

[Shambles1980]

well amd aren't going to say.
We wanted to make 8 cores but its a bit expensive so what we did was make a quad core throw in an extra scheduler and pipelines and call it 8 cores, hope no one notices whilst we think up something to do with this module design because it sure as fudge isnt going to compete with an i7

i have pointed out all my reasoning why i say its not true 8 cores. i gave a coherent analogy, and even stated that this is my opinion in my eyes.
I simply cant call it 8 cores when it blatantly inst. if amd want to redefine what a core is that's fine, but i am not about to change the definition because its better for their marketing. and im rather disappointed that some people have..

IMO if they had just said its a quad core with extra pipelines. then people would not have been so disappointed with the performance

 

[Dent1]

well amd aren't going to say.

Well according to you The FX 8xxx could be "16 threaded". Wouldn't AMD say this to sell more units? - Your own logic makes no sense.

Also even if AMD doesn't say I'm sure the thousands of independent technology reviewers would say.

We wanted to make 8 cores but its a bit expensive so what we did was make a quad core throw in an extra scheduler and pipe lines and call it 8 cores.

Says who? Says what independent source, If you insist on using yourself as a source can you please upload your electrical engineering degree.

 

[Shambles1980]

see the picture that i showed with what a 8 core of amd would look like. That was AMD's initial idea.
then see the one that has 1 core with more pipelines? Thats what they ended up doing..
you work it out..

 

[Toothless]

well amd aren't going to say.
We wanted to make 8 cores but its a bit expensive so what we did was make a quad core throw in an extra scheduler and pipelines and call it 8 cores, hope no one notices whilst we think up something to do with this module design because it sure as fudge isnt going to compete with an i7

i have pointed out all my reasoning why i say its not true 8 cores. i gave a coherent analogy, and even stated that this is my opinion in my eyes.
I simply cant call it 8 cores when it blatantly inst. if amd want to redefine what a core is that's fine, but i am not about to change the definition because its better for their marketing. and im rather disappointed that some people have..

IMO if they had just said its a quad core with extra pipelines. then people would not have been so disappointed with the performance

You can call it a giant single core if you want, that's fine. But you CANNOT say that it's fact. I saw all 8 cores there. Either you just want to argue or you're being ignorant to the people who have been trying to help you.

 

[Shambles1980]

You can call it a giant single core if you want, that's fine. But you CANNOT say that it's fact. I saw all 8 cores there. Either you just want to argue or you're being ignorant to the people who have been trying to help you.

you can say its 8 cores.
But if it looks like a quad core.
has the same ammount of l2, fmac. fp scheduler, fetch and decode as a quad core.
has the Performance of a quad core.
Then to me its a quad core.

any way as this is getting to be a rather long and some what futile debate.
i will say:
im wrong it so is a 8 core cpu. omg how did i not see that

 

[Toothless]

you can say its 8 cores.
But if it looks like a quad core.
has the same ammount of l2, fmac. fp scheduler, fetch and decode as a quad core.
has the Performance of a quad core.
Then to me its a quad core.

any way as this is getting to be a rather long and some what futile debate.
i will say:
im wrong it so is a 8 core cpu. omg how did i not see that

Acting like a child doesn't help your case.

 

[Shambles1980]

there is no case lol.
there is what there is then bashing my head on the wall..
I gave up with the bashing my head and will let you call it 8 cores.
just don't expect me to do the same lol.

just to point out, i am actually trying to sell this 8120 still. and i wouldn't say all i have said just to be obnoxious because any 1 finding this thread from google and reading it who may have potentially bought my 8120 would probably not after reading this.
Im just stating what i see how i see it. And i dont really care if its detrimental to the sale of my cpu. because i belive it is true.

 

[Toothless]

We call it an 8-cored CPU because it is an 8-cored CPU. Where is your education coming from? Your degree in KnowingEverythingAboutAMD?