AMD Bulldozer Finally!

djkav · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:21

mmj_uk said:
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.

pmc25 · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:30

I doubt if precision ever exceeds 64bit in games. Presumably it's 32bit most of the time.

I suppose some of the physics might exceed that, but I doubt if it'd be needed.

Martini1991 · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:24

djkav said:
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

Gashman · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:49

djkav said:
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...

Gashman · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:52

Martini1991 said:
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

Martini1991 · 27 Sep 2011 at 20:11

Gashman said:
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?

djkav · 27 Sep 2011 at 22:51

Gashman said:
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.

Final8y · 28 Sep 2011 at 06:37

Anyway not long now.

JAGRocks09 · 28 Sep 2011 at 08:13

Two weeks today we Should have some information

Mollari · 28 Sep 2011 at 09:13

JAGRocks09 said:
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..).

crackerman · 28 Sep 2011 at 09:32

Mollari said:
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..).

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.

Skidder · 28 Sep 2011 at 09:36

crackerman said:
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.

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.

Mollari · 28 Sep 2011 at 09:41

crackerman said:
I doubt either multi billion pound company will feel the pinch if you "support" one over the other.

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

Martini1991 · 28 Sep 2011 at 11:42

Mollari said:
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..).

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.

Energizer Bunny · 28 Sep 2011 at 11:46

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.

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.

Hagar · 28 Sep 2011 at 12:37

Energizer Bunny said:
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 for the price 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.

fixed

Energizer Bunny · 28 Sep 2011 at 13:28

Well I'd thought that was implicit, but yes fair enough.

Scougar · 28 Sep 2011 at 14:11

So what's the latest speculation for BD performance (comparable to which Intel Product perhaps?) - Not trolling, genuinely interested as trying to decide whether to get SB now, or wait and see with BD.

Martini1991 · 28 Sep 2011 at 14:36

Scougar said:
So what's the latest speculation for BD performance (comparable to which Intel Product perhaps?) - Not trolling, genuinely interested as trying to decide whether to get SB now, or wait and see with BD.

In heavily multithreaded apps, for the 8150 inbetween the 2500k and 2600k.
Likewise it should be price wise.

SeraphX · 28 Sep 2011 at 14:38

not really sure, a load of screens surfaced from Donimhaber last week? stating that apparently BD crushes i5 and in some cases challenges i7 and SB but no processor specifics were given about the amd chip in question and nothing on the screens lends credit about them originating from AMD, i'd say they were fanboy made tbh