If for example, BF3 was using 90% 256bit threads on CPU. Then I'm guessing that the 8 core advantage of BD is wiped out, and becomes more of a 4 core CPU.
The 8 core advantage will only show its head when most operations are 128bits.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Bulldozer Finally!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
If for example, BF3 was using 90% 256bit threads on CPU. Then I'm guessing that the 8 core advantage of BD is wiped out, and becomes more of a 4 core CPU.
The 8 core advantage will only show its head when most operations are 128bits.
Looking at the module layout diagrams it looks to me like a single thread will have both of the floating point units and double the L2 cache available to play with? so it would make sense that performance on the first core will take a slight hit when running two threads per module versus one... it would also be a fairly sensible design move by AMD because very few games will utilize all of the cores, if they can give cores 1, 3, 5 & 7 priority over 2, 4, 6, 8 it would result in better performance in practically anything that used 4 threads or less.
Am I right?
Am I right?
Last edited:
hahawhaaat! who you been sleeping with?lucky git :>
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18236540
long thread but it's about half way through the thread...
Looking at the module layout diagrams it looks to me like a single thread will have both of the floating point units and double the L2 cache available to play with? so it would make sense that performance on the first core will take a slight hit when running two threads per module versus one... it would also be a fairly sensible design move by AMD because very few games will utilize all of the cores, if they can give cores 1, 3, 5 & 7 priority over 2, 4, 6, 8 it would result in better performance in practically anything that used 4 threads or less.
Am I right?
No not really. The only performance hit is if a single thread requires the full 256bits in the FPU. It can only execute 1 thread at that moment.
A module has 2 integer schedulers and the FPU can perform 2x 128bit operations at the same time. That's enough for the module to perform 2 threads in parallel.
If most operations are only 128bit, which they probably are. Then BD should have strong processing throughput.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,521
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Correct. A BD module is a complete package consisting of 2 integer execution units and a shared 256bit FPU. Thus 1 module can only be loosely compared to a conventional dual core unit.
AMD say that 1 module has about 80% performance of a traditional dual core, but takes a lot less die space as a traditional dual core.
A module can process 2x 128bit threads or 1x 256bit thread. AMD are pinning their hopes on their research, which states that most CPU operations are 128bit based and only a few 256bit based.
Even tho I have pumped for the cheap priced 2500k, I really do hope AMD get BD to work as they see it
What's a traditional dual core, a callisto? If so it's worse than what I said about it being 4 Callisto's
Correct. A BD module is a complete package consisting of 2 integer execution units and a shared 256bit FPU. Thus 1 module can only be loosely compared to a conventional dual core unit.
AMD say that 1 module has about 80% performance of a traditional dual core, but takes a lot less die space as a traditional dual core.
A module can process 2x 128bit threads or 1x 256bit thread. AMD are pinning their hopes on their research, which states that most CPU operations are 128bit based and only a few 256bit based.
Even tho I have pumped for the cheap priced 2500k, I really do hope AMD get BD to work as they see it
don't even go there dude, its not worth the hassle you'll get. been saying from day one stop being anal and learn to compare something the way its intended, one module vs. one Intel core, that is the way it was always intended to be and all those blabbing on about how each Bulldozer 'core' isn't as fast as a Sandy Bridge core have just missed the point by such a distance its not even worth laughing at!
at the end of the day Bulldozer is a flexible, high clocking modular architecture designed to make the whole thing more efficient, not waste resources and what not, and what we are seeing from these 'leaked' benchmarks people are putting so much faith in, it has accomplished its purpose perfectly and does well in multi-threaded applications, especially where high resolution gaming is concerned and it has fantastic energy saving features. Intel camp need to just back the hell off for once and see Bulldozer for what it is...
What's a traditional dual core, a callisto? If so it's worse than what I said about it being 4 Callisto's
sorry but you are just being extremely negative and anal about this whole matter, you know right what he means by a 'traditional' dual-core, as in the design before Bulldozer, there is no point at coming into this thread with the whole 'Bulldozer is going to be crap' and 'Bulldozer is doomed...' attitude. say your piece and stop sarcastically quoting people on things. sorry but people accuse me of bringing negativity into this debate but hell, some of the stuff you've posted is on another level completely, almost like you work for Intel or something...sorry but it had to be said
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,521
- Location
- Dormanstown.
sorry but you are just being extremely negative and anal about this whole matter, you know right what he means by a 'traditional' dual-core, as in the design before Bulldozer, there is no point at coming into this thread with the whole 'Bulldozer is going to be crap' and 'Bulldozer is doomed...' attitude. say your piece and stop sarcastically quoting people on things. sorry but people accuse me of bringing negativity into this debate but hell, some of the stuff you've posted is on another level completely, almost like you work for Intel or something...sorry but it had to be said
The design before Bulldozer for a dual core is Callisto, how is that being negative? If it performs worse than 4 Callisto CPU's, then how is that a step forward for performance? Efficiency fine, you can have that one, I've said it's efficient and renders the 2600k a bad purchase, MONTHS AGO.
I don't understand why people are defending BD to hell and back, it either performs good, or it doesn't. No one cares about the design if it can't perform, regardless of how much of a possible step forward it is.
The bulldozer architecture will be brilliant in the future when heavily multi-threaded app's are the norm.
I've owned a stupid amount of AMD CPU's, I've built a ton of AMD systems, if BD was out, and performed better than SB for the price in the majority of programs, I'd be all pro AMD, but it's not out, and it's looking potentially pretty bad.. Oh wow, it uses less die space, I'm sure that'll be a massive comfort to low performance.
And you can't compare 1 core to a module, unless you compare a 2600k core as that's capable of two threads. If a 2600k core can outpace a BD module in single threaded and two threaded app's, regardless of BD's smaller die space, does it matter about its design?
Last edited:
don't even go there dude, its not worth the hassle you'll get. been saying from day one stop being anal and learn to compare something the way its intended, one module vs. one Intel core, that is the way it was always intended to be and all those blabbing on about how each Bulldozer 'core' isn't as fast as a Sandy Bridge core have just missed the point by such a distance its not even worth laughing at!
at the end of the day Bulldozer is a flexible, high clocking modular architecture designed to make the whole thing more efficient, not waste resources and what not, and what we are seeing from these 'leaked' benchmarks people are putting so much faith in, it has accomplished its purpose perfectly and does well in multi-threaded applications, especially where high resolution gaming is concerned and it has fantastic energy saving features. Intel camp need to just back the hell off for once and see Bulldozer for what it is...
Erm, im not dissing the bulldozer by any means. Nor am I part of Camp Intel.
I said it a module was loosely comparable to a dual core because by its very nature it is. Anyway, I like what AMD are doing with Bulldozer and hope it helps shape the future of CPU design.
As I see it now, we are reaching the boundaries of efficiency, heat and size.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 154
Two weeks today we Should have some information 
Two weeks today we Should have some information
Yes we should. And its gonna be awesome for AMD users, even if it wouldnt compete with 2600K.
Bulldozers comes from AMD thats all that matters for me. (well, to be exact I just dont want to support Intel- theres a slight difference..).
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 909
- Location
- Devon
Surely just buy what has the best performance for your budget. I doubt either multi billion pound company will feel the pinch if you "support" one over the other.
But I hope these processors are good, I already have an AM3+ motherboard so it will drop in nicely.
Last edited:
You'd think so wouldn't you but for some reasons GPUs and CPUs seem to suck people in to dewy eyed fandom just like football and boy bands. I've had a pretty even split of the two manufacturers over the years.
Well even if AMD wouldnt appreciate my choice I do. But I know they will, with only 20% of market share
Im going to buy decent mobo this time, Crosshair V or Saberthooth
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,521
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The current hexcores, in certain app's are already between the 2500k and 2600k (heavily multithreaded app's).
If a 8150 can't outpace the 2600k in those same app's, it's not going to be awesome for AMD users at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,215
Interesting isn't it? I'd like to see AMD succeed as the plucky underdog as overall I think a market needs at least 2 major players for the consumer to get best value. That said, I'd never allow that conceptual support for them to manifest itself as buying a chip which was demonstrably worse than the alternative from Intel.
That isn't particularly a comment on Bulldozer. I've no idea how it will measure up to the 2600.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,215
Well I'd thought that was implicit, but yes fair enough.