AMD’s Bulldozer And Bobcat Architectures Pave The Way

[firedust]

[citation][nom]Wheat_Thins[/nom]4 years later..... Just wait for Bulldozer..... AMD is coming back! 0.o8 years later..... Just wait for 'x'........... AMD is coming back! 0.oI loved myself some AMD back in the Althon XP/64 days but I have moved onto the i7 platform without wincing and it just boggles my mind that people I would imagine to be grown adults still wave fanboy flags all day long and remain loyal to a name. I have also switched between ATI / Nvidia multiple times over. Buy whats best available at the time; you're buying performance, not a brand name when it comes to computing capabilities.If Bulldozer rocks I will move back, if it don't I wont. Pretty simple. To see people holding their breath in hopes that 'x' company will make a better product because they are emotionally attached to 'x' (LOL emotionally attached to a company) is really downright pathetic.AMD is offering GREAT value as of late. I bought a 1055T for what I would consider cracker jack toy prices when you consider your getting six cores. But when it comes down to it I respect the fact that Intel (at this moment) has higher performance / clock, runs cooler, uses less energy, over clocks better, and in turn accept the fact you will pay a higher price for these luxuries EXACTLY like when Althon X2 was king of the mountain and AMD raped the willing.[/citation]

Dumb statement. People want AMD to succeed so there will be more competition. That would in turn lower prices. Think a little before you post.

 

[mikem_90]

[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]Thanks for the great article and valuable information. Someone scolded me for saying I wanted to wait for a bulldozer processor to upgrade. Thanks for clearing this up. Yes, Bulldozer is what I'm waiting for, prolly a Zamboni would be nice.By the way, just who the hell comes up with these ridiculous names? I personally think manufacturers would sell more units if they weren't so confusing.[/citation]

90% of computer users don't know or need to know what the internal codenames for these platforms are. Its that way for any company that deals with codenames for their products. Its just that some users want to dig a bit that we get this information up front.

For instance: Someone I know works for a company that makes modems, they have internal codenames for each of their product lines. The names are only useable by people in house, but if people were so gung ho about the technology used in them, they could go gaga about "sharks" or "Tsunami" or what not.

 

[vexun11]

What about the IMC of the bulldozer? I heard something about quad channel memory?

 

[pjmelect]

What’s important to me is how the AMD processors and Intel processors compare when running single threaded applications. It is clear from reading this article that the AMD core will be significantly faster than the Intel core providing the program that is being run is multi-threaded.

 

[descendency]

All I can say is Have fun not being able to over-clock your systems, Intel fans.

 

[kelemvor4]

AMD creating some competition will be good for us consumers, that's for sure. Hopefully this won't be another phenomenal flop like AMD's current chips.

 

[falchard]

Whenever you create something new, there is always the chance you will have a major success or a major failure. I think we can remember Intel's great Core2 success and previous Pentium IV failure. Bulldozer sounds good on paper, but ofcourse it can also fail just like the ATI 2900XT did. I think we won't have a definitive answer until the benchmarks are in. If it does well then I know what my workstation will be based around. It will be a nice boost from my 2007 AM2+ machine.
On Intel's Tick/Tock, its not really like that. Remember some of Intels Ticks? Slapping 2 Core2 chips together and calling it a quad core. Sandy Bridge is in the same vein as the Core2 Quads. Its a CoreI5 chip slapped with an Intel IGP. When it comes to major architecture changes, AMD has been keeping up with Intel this decade. Intel--> Pentium III, Core2, CoreI. AMD--> Athlon, Phenom, Bobcat/Bulldozer.

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

The main question is, when AMD is saying their 16 "core" processor is 50% faster than their 12 "core" processor, are they saying 16 "real" cores, or eight of these units with two execution engines.

It's good to see they got away from having ports with both AGUs and ALUs. Hopefully they copied more from Intel than that.

They are saying that a 16 core cpu will have 8 cores which each process two threads in hardware with the understanding that some hardware in each module is shared. It's like a more powerful hyperthreading, although such judgements really need to be tested.

 

[palladin9479]

This is looking more like a SPARC T2 Plus type design. The SPARC T2's each have 8 cores, each core has 2 integer units and 1 floating point unit. Each integer unit has four sets of independent registers. The CPU only runs at 1.6 GHZ but can track 64 simultaneous threads (without context switching) and execute 16 integer + 8 floating point instructions per clock. Super multi-thread optimized but lacking in single thread performance.

I hope AMD does things to ensure their newer design can maintain single thread performance (almost all benchmarks these days focus on this) while kicking butt in multi-thread performance.

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

[citation][nom]Wheat_Thins[/nom]4 years later..... Just wait for Bulldozer..... AMD is coming back! 0.o8 years later..... Just wait for 'x'........... AMD is coming back! 0.oI loved myself some AMD back in the Althon XP/64 days but I have moved onto the i7 platform without wincing and it just boggles my mind that people I would imagine to be grown adults still wave fanboy flags all day long and remain loyal to a name. I have also switched between ATI / Nvidia multiple times over. Buy whats best available at the time; you're buying performance, not a brand name when it comes to computing capabilities.If Bulldozer rocks I will move back, if it don't I wont. Pretty simple. To see people holding their breath in hopes that 'x' company will make a better product because they are emotionally attached to 'x' (LOL emotionally attached to a company) is really downright pathetic.AMD is offering GREAT value as of late. I bought a 1055T for what I would consider cracker jack toy prices when you consider your getting six cores. But when it comes down to it I respect the fact that Intel (at this moment) has higher performance / clock, runs cooler, uses less energy, over clocks better, and in turn accept the fact you will pay a higher price for these luxuries EXACTLY like when Althon X2 was king of the mountain and AMD raped the willing.[/citation]

You are wrong about people. I choose to believe in AMD as a company, it is something that makes me happy. They have made very good cpu's, thank you, and I continue to use them. Looking forward to Buldozer, will be buying one, and with all that I do realize Intel has the faster cpu. No matter, for my money I'll do nicely.

I suppose the difference is that I care about people and AMD is people. It's nice to care and to have a company to care about. Part of my nature.

I also care about Intel, just not worried about them, they are doing fine.

 

[Marcus52]

Mmm, I don't see it; I'm not convinced that quality and performance, especially the latter, are what AMD have in mind. I think they are still back to their old ways, competition through a lower price. Nothing wrong with that, and it will will help keep Intel's prices down, even in their higher end chips to a certain extent, but not what I'm looking for.

Still, I'm looking forward to the release as well, and I hope I'm wrong and the Bulldozer is all it should be. I'd be ecstatic to be able to pop in an AMD CPU into my AM3 mainboard based computer that outperforms my i7 920 OC Intel based computer!

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

I think we will need an AM3+ motherboard for bulldozer, sad to say. That hurts, just bought this AM3 board.

 

[englandr753]

[citation][nom]r0ck3tm@n[/nom]I think we will need an AM3+ motherboard for bulldozer, sad to say. That hurts, just bought this AM3 board.[/citation]

Yes, I'm in the same boat. I have a 1095T paired with an ASUS Crosshair IV mobo. I'd really hate to have to make that a secondary system or sell it off. I guess the good thing is the 8G of ddr3 ram and all of my other hardware will remain, aside from my GPU and most likely an SSD...

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]vexun11[/nom]What about the IMC of the bulldozer? I heard something about quad channel memory?[/citation]
I saw that on a Wikipedia article about Bulldozer too(CPU of course).
Not sure if it's true but it definately would add a much higher memory bandwidth capability.Tri channel memory sure helps the Core i7 920 and 930's.I am interested in where you heard that about quad channel memory capability.
Any links?

 

[Jarmo]

Well.. I hope this works, especially in the Bulldozer front.
AMD could really use a win now and then. It's been a while (5 years or so?) since intel grabbed the top spot,
a win there would go far towards grabbing the hearts and minds.

But it's Llano that'll be in the (to me) most interesting products.
Decently powerful CPU + decently powerful GPU = WIN.
Just the thing for htpcs and macs and all kinds of fancy stuff.

 

[antilycus]

I am still waiting for games to be multithreaded. Does anyone know a single one that is written w/ independent thread processing? Last I heard, it was too hard for developers to pull off and no compiler on the planet is that smart.

 

[DSpider]

Game developers have been stuck for the past few years because of consoles. The equivalent of an x3 CPU, 8800GT and 2 GB RAM. What we're playing today are console ports. CPU matters less on higher resolutions so just get a CPU that won't bottleneck your next video card (or bottleneck it by a very small margin) and you're set. By the time you'd need a new CPU the platform will be obsolete.

For everything else you do on average you don't need more than a dual core. Unless you do video encoding or rendering for a living.

 

[metallifux]

"AMD plans to use 32 nm manufacturing, and early reports suggest Socket AM3 compatibility (along with DDR3 memory support). Zambezi is not an APU, but rather is meant to be paired with discrete graphics. "

Can we get a hard confirm regarding this, instead of "early reports suggest"? This directly impacts my purchasing decisions and I imagine I'm not the only one...

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

According to Gizmodo AMD has now confirmed that Zambezi will NOT be compatible with socket AM3. They will be releasing a new socket AM3+ that will be backwards compatible with current CPU's. My hope is that they release this new socket soon!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/amd-announces-8-core-bulldozer-cpu/

 

[hannibal]

AMD need allso a little bit of luck. The transition to 32nm is not too easy. That is why they start it with more simple Llano. Hopefullu they can tune their 32nm production fast so that we can see those more complex products allso as soos as possible. As it has been said. Competition is good!

 

[OvrClkr]

If bulldozer comes out to be AM3+ only where the user is going to actually have to spend money on a new board and a new set of ram then it seems like AMD is following the Intel route. Most AM2/AM2+ board can use AM3 cpu's, why would AMD change the upgrade path when it was working perfectly fine with older sockets?

I don't see any articles talking about AM3+ boards so this normally tells us that Dozer is most likely to be released towards the end of next year. Heck the 890 boards came out not too long ago, one would think that a Bios flash would resolve the whole AM3+ argument.

As far as I know it should be AM3/DDR3 compatible according to Anand :

 

[gmarsack]

It's really nice to see a seperation between AMD and Intel as far as how they approach the CPU. Sure beats one guy looking over the other guys shoulder for more ideas. Way to go AMD for being different! Can't wait to see the payoff in the end!

 

[dgwalker_]

[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom] Really, all AMD needs now is a Commercial. Anybody?[/citation]

With the picture being the classic movie Bambi Meets Godzilla and the sound being the Intel jingle (you know..."Bum! Ba Buh Buh Bum!), just as the last note hits Godzilla's foot comes down and crushes Bambi, and the last note of the jingle is replaced by the sound from the movie.

 

[metallifux]

If bulldozer comes out to be AM3+ only where the user is going to actually have to spend money on a new board and a new set of ram then it seems like AMD is following the Intel route. Most AM2/AM2+ board can use AM3 cpu's, why would AMD change the upgrade path when it was working perfectly fine with older sockets?

I don't see any articles talking about AM3+ boards so this normally tells us that Dozer is most likely to be released towards the end of next year. Heck the 890 boards came out not too long ago, one would think that a Bios flash would resolve the whole AM3+ argument.

As far as I know it should be AM3/DDR3 compatible according to Anand :

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/dozer_AM3.jpg

I'm pretty sure that slide was taken from an old conference in 2009 and has since been changed to AM3r2. And while i think AMD should and will continue to support forwards/backwards socket compatability as many have said this is the first major redesign of the AMD core in many years.

 

[Guest]

Lets see:
Current 6 Core i7 has 40% greater CPU power than a 6 core AMD chip.
Thus, even if AMD can someone get a 40% increase in CPU power with their new chips, that will only even them out... But remember this, by the time the new AMD chip comes out, we'll already have Sandy Bridges which will most likely raise that 40% to 50%, not to mention there are 8 core i7 chips, so, that's another 10% or so increase in processing power. This is not to mention that i7s will still do more per clock than AMD, thus overclocking will help i7s more than the AMD chips.

In conclusion, unless AMD somehow manage to double the CPU power (and that is not what's promised), they will not catch up. The new AMD chip will still be much worse, in both enterprise and desktop, than the Intel chips. Might still be a good buy based on price, but it will not be more powerful than an Intel chip, just cheaper.

 

[thomasxstewart]

diagrams are poor. heres latest from dresden. notice one exit & plethora of two way crossbars, guess barcelona finally paid off. probably most advanced processor for stabily & quility of software rendering ever made.vector extensions, small talk, BULLDOZER like new age of conflict.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RvD6UeeI1Jg/TG5TaEwMJgI/AAAAAAAAACU/2RvOxl3kvNc/s1600/file.jpg

SignedHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART von DRASHEK M.D.