AMD Bulldozer News and Discussion

[mohiuddin]

@vickybat , u cann't tell the predicted zambezi, a 8core processors accurately.an integer and a core is not the same thing.we can tell them ,4moduled processor.
As two integer share same instruction fetch and hardware decoding and also their is only one shared floating point scheduler in one module.so, an integer and a core ,a lot difference.
And please note that, it is highly enhanced interconnection in bulldozer, that is expected to enhance the gme fps performance..
And also, as it is too early to predict the price, don't be so confident to tell those rumor price.

 

[vickybat]

@vickybat , u cann't tell the predicted zambezi, a 8core processors accurately.an integer and a core is not the same thing.we can tell them ,4moduled processor.
As two integer share same instruction fetch and hardware decoding and also their is only one shared floating point scheduler in one module.so, an integer and a core ,a lot difference.
And please note that, it is highly enhanced interconnection in bulldozer, that is expected to enhance the gme fps performance..
And also, as it is too early to predict the price, don't be so confident to tell those rumor price.

Zambezi is an eight core processor and thats how amd will market them and not as 4 modules. Amd in the design level addresses two cores as a single module.And a processor not only computes integers but also floating point instructions.

AMD is addressing a dual core design as a single module which can work on two threads separately and not like smt.They share multiple resources like fetch, decode, floating point scheduler and integer point scheduler which are separate entities in a dual core. Amd claims this to achieve 80% of the performance of a true dual core.

This design will give more performance per watt but by what degree has to be seen. In this design, they are more biased towards integer math performance due to two integer scheduler in a module.

Neverthless, amd will still call its single module as two cores and will market them as such. And for the price, its definitely not gonna come cheap this time.

 

[coderunknown]

i think AMD did it right. Intel have Hyper Threading & most noobs (a few of my friends who thinks they know a lot about computing) counts the virtual cores into the total number of cores. so AMD countered with modules. but how will these processors fight the Intel i7 army on single threaded apps? i hope these ship with Turbo Core 2.0

 

[mohiuddin]

Zambezi is an eight core processor and thats how amd will market them and not as 4 modules. Amd in the design level addresses two cores as a single module.And a processor not only computes integers but also floating point instructions.

AMD is addressing a dual core design as a single module which can work on two threads separately and not like smt.They share multiple resources like fetch, decode, floating point scheduler and integer point scheduler which are separate entities in a dual core. Amd claims this to achieve 80% of the performance of a true dual core.

This design will give more performance per watt but by what degree has to be seen. In this design, they are more biased towards integer math performance due to two integer scheduler in a module.

Neverthless, amd will still call its single module as two cores and will market them as such. And for the price, its definitely not gonna come cheap this time.

your post proves that an integer and cpu, not same..yea, amd gonna selling it as 8core.but, still,same fact.in accurate they r not that cores.
Whatever, just hoping for a good fight.

 

[ico]

Mohiuddin, I'll explain you this in a much simpler way which is completely my interpretation and it might be wrong too.

Think like this. 2 normal cores are taking 2 sq. units of area or 1 core is taking 1 sq. unit of area. [die size]

1 bulldozer module or 2 bulldozer cores are taking only something around 1.2 sq. units (arbitrary) of die size and still performing 80% of a standard 2 core.

Now limit the die size to 10 sq. units. You get 10 standard cores whereas in Bulldozer, you get 10/0.6 = 16.66 bulldozer cores.

If 10 standard cores get 10 marks on some benchmark, 16.66 bulldozer cores will get 0.8*16.66 = 13.33.

[just a simple interpretation]

*images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/hotchips2010/bulldozerefficient.jpg
^ this thing actually says that compared to a single core, a bulldozer module aka two bulldozer cores only take 12% more die size. [information in the box] (the first bulleted statement is sort of incorrectly framed, I think)

And here's why it is their answer to hyperthreading.
*media.bestofmicro.com/bulldozer-bobcat-hot-chips,L-M-258682-13.jpg
By just adding mere 12% more and sharing resources, they are achieving 80% performance of a dual core. Whereas in HyperThreading, performance gains are only 10-20%.

 

[coderunknown]

nice explanation. but i think the 1st bullet point is true. take the whole module size at 100sq units & so adding the 2nd integer core increased the module size by 12% i.e. total size now is 112 eq units. now if size of each circuitry is 1sq unit (LET) than the total extra circuitry needed is indeed 12sq unit more. cause size directly proportional to the amount of circuits used.

& lastly i hope AMD at least don't follow Intel's footstep of locking their chips. at least not the clock generator.

 

[ico]

See, you are saying what I have said.

AMD provides two cores in 1.12 sq units which perform 80% of standard two cores in 2 sq units. If you read the statement in the first point and in the box, you'll find the first point "sort of" incorrectly framed.

"Amount of circuitry needed for a second integer core is only 12% of the total module"

Replace the word "module" with "single core", then it makes sense to me because AMD never really called "single core" as "single module" before in their lives. Just poor choice of words though. I'm just being picky.

They should have said it rather this way:

"Amount of circuitry needed for a second integer core is only 12% of today's single core giving us a module."

I'm just criticizing their choice of words, nothing else.

 

[Joker]

good informative post...
die efficiency is another aspect of chip design. like amd's cpus at the moment suck compared to intel. i hope bulldozer turns out to be their "core" architecture and does to Intel what Intel did to them 4 years ago.

for eg, HD 6970 is like 73% of gtx 580. so, gtx 580 should naturally be faster. profit margins for amd are still hight. having said, gtx 470/80 series were complete failures. They were as big as gtx 580, so you can see.

 

[coderunknown]

See, you are saying what I have said.

AMD provides two cores in 1.12 sq units which perform 80% of standard two cores in 2 sq units. If you read the statement in the first point and in the box, you'll find the first point "sort of" incorrectly framed.

"Amount of circuitry needed for a second integer core is only 12% of the total module"

Replace the word "module" with "single core", then it makes sense to me because AMD never really called "single core" as "single module" before in their lives. Just poor choice of words though. I'm just being picky.

They should have said it rather this way:

"Amount of circuitry needed for a second integer core is only 12% of today's single core giving us a module."

I'm just criticizing their choice of words, nothing else.

yes. you corrected the term technically but i think the choice of using words that doesn't highlight the complete scenario was deliberate.

cause if AMD says they added a 2nd core by using just 12% more circuitry, most may start saying that their platform is slow or weak even before it enters the market.

 

[mohiuddin]

Replace the word "module" with "single core", then it makes sense to me because AMD never really called "single core" as "single module" before in their lives. Just poor choice of words though.

thats a great poin of view....
and thats what i was talking about.
we can tell modules a super-threaded core..as there is much hardware dedication unlike those disgusting-chemoflexing hyperthreading in intel-cpus.

bulldozer ftw.lets bulldoze intels' sandy bridge and also ivy bridge

 

[vickybat]

^^ Well buddy its not that easy to bulldoze sandybridge, the upcoming socket 2011 and ivy bridge. But if that happens it will be a major win for amd since its k8 architecture. And i am sure there's much more with upcoming intel cpu's than hyperthreading.

Remember that the sandybridge cpu's launched are mid to low end parts. They are even competing and beating intel's previous flagship i.e i7 980x gulftown.

And intel is completely silent about socket 2011 as of now.

Early previews from xbit labs suggest that zambezi 8 core processor is around 50% faster than an i7 950 and the thubans. So beating intels new highend and to be launched 6 and 8 core sandybridge cpu's is going to be an extremely tough job.

But amd cannot be counted out at all and has the potential for a strong showing.

Bulldozer has an excellent design taking power efficiency to a new level and is more biased towards integer operations rather than floating point operations.

 

[max_snyper]

>>There is a lot of gaga going on the 8-core zambezi from couple week has any body got the news on the 6-core,4-core processors that are going to be launched at the same day as the 8-core?
Are they going to follow the same architecture of the zambezi like the module with two cores or same architechture as the thuban?
Its a gamble for AMD this time on the 8-core architecture,i hope amd gets all the betting right this time(ps. icing on the cake would be lower price on the 8-core for us.lets hope it happens.)

 

[vickybat]

^^ The fusion apu's will have a thuban like architecture for the cpu and amd calls them stars.

But zambezi based quads and hex cores when launched will be bulldozers i.e the above architecture discussed.

But that lower price thingy is highly unlikely imo. So lets see what happens.

 

[ico]

If lower price is unlikely, then it only translates into excellent performance.

 

[vickybat]

Yeah thats for sure bulldozer based cpu's will perform brilliantly and they have to in order to take the fight to intel's high end.

 

[Cilus]

I'm also hoping for it. Wish those times will come back when AMD released their 1st 64 bit processors, Athlon 64 bit 3000+.

 

[topgear]

^^ their first 64 bit cpu were Athlon FX-51 and Athlon 64 3200+

 

[max_snyper]

Still no word about the zambezi 6-core,4-core proccy's on the internet.If they are gonna be based on the same architecture as the 8-core.then how they are gonna perform against any of the sb 4 core proccys.as amd said its a module 80% performance of the real dual core architecture.If they perform as their old ph ii x6 architecture,then only difference would be new memory support 1800+ mhz.though it will be good buy as something new but it will be as same as their old counter parts.
yes im little interested in how will x6 zambezi perform in real world.i hope that amd has taken note of the current intel snb lineup.i wrong move and amd will get seriously bashing from snb(my concerns only regarding the x6 and x4 lineup).
As for the x8 its gonna rock....not for most of the people but some enthusiast for whom budget is not a issue.
ps.any news for x6 x4 zambezi is appreciated.

 

[ico]

^^ you have actually missed everything which I talked about. They are performing 80% while taking approximately 45% less die space. Read everything which I wrote carefully. AMD can easily compensate for the 20% performance loss by adding more of these modules.

What I'm expecting to see is AMD offering a 4-module processor against a 4-core Intel hyper-threaded processor.

 

[max_snyper]

^^i was just curious about what if they could not perform as expected..more than 8-core im anxious to know more about the 6-core that will be economical for desktop users.
and dude why would amd increase core count just to compensate losses,they have already decided to go with 4-6-8 cores(read 2-3-4 modules).For the 4 module architecture i'm eagerly waitin for its real world performance..it is surely gonna rock.
till then we all have to keep our hopes up.
any news for x6 x4 zambezi is still appreciated.
thank you.