jdwii :
palladin9479 :
People still comparing PHII to BD? Guess they'll never learn.
Anyhow, a DT SR chip would be pretty decent as long as they can produce it on something that clocks high. BD's uarch absolutely needs high clock speeds, those 2 ALU's can only do so much when compared to design's that have 3~4 ALU's.
This is mostly AMD trying to tackle the enterprise sector which favors high core count chips, they won't ever be able to competitively compete here. Low power markets is where most of the chedder is and where they should focus their efforts. They just need to add a third ALU to each "core", would cost relatively small amounts of die space and provide the extra integer performance that everyone is complaining about.
Compared to BD phenom or the stars architecture is better even in today's benchmarks the majority of the time its safe to say Amd know's BD was a failure and since their focusing on 4 cores the module design is a failure and yes they know this now i hope. Amd will barley beat the star cores with the excavator design with PD Amd needs a 15% advantage in clock speed to beat a x6 phenom and now its 10% with steamroller and with excavator they will probably be around 5-10% faster in performance per clock compared to the stars design on average besides programs using the new instruction sets this is not in opinion this is a fact, again for the 100th time Amd would have been better with X86 performance if they sticked with the star's design and improved on it.
It's your opinion being regurgitated as fact.
BD uArch was designed to clock high, the K10 uArch can't achieve high clock rates due to design limitations. This is why the "clock for clock" or "at the same clock" argument fails. The last K10 uArch was Llano not Phenom II, so if you want to see a K10 APU then compare against that. It was a four core 32nm implementation of the stars uArch
and had the same limitations. Cost, not clock speed, is what differentiates products from each other. AMD isn't "focusing on four core", four core is the max they can fit inside an APU and still have it at a reasonable cost and TDP for consumers. There is no admission to some imagined past grievances as you have stated. The original BD CPU wasn't much of an upgrade for the x4 or x6 crowd, but the 8350 was most definitely an upgrade. I happen to have a 980BE working in my backup system and it's no where near as good as my FX8350.
What you, and many others not clued in to how uArch's are made, don't understand is that the fictional imaginary stars design you have invented could never exist. There was no future 32/28nm "Phenom III" that was a scaled down design, it wouldn't of worked without a major redesign. As you have all just witnessed going to smaller nodes presents very real problems to design, chiefly thermal density and current leakage.
Another thing your not realizing is that the BD uArch is far more efficient in utilizing processor resources then Phenom II is and while I can understand why they wanted to go with an 8x2 ALU design I still believe a 6x3 could of been better.
The only real weakness in the BD uArch that isn't present in the K10 is the way they implemented the SIMD FPU. When used in normal workloads it's fine but when synthetic benchmarks are ran on it it tends to perform poorly due to how it's a units are linked. I believe AMD went with this design because they eventually wanted to move most of the SIMD functions to the GPU component and the four 256-bit units present in the BD are sufficient for anything a consumer would throw at it (anything requiring more then four FPU's would be better one on a GPU anyway).
Anyhow I just got done reviewing historical information and 8350 crush's both the 980 and the 1100 overall, it beats it in single threaded and absolutely crush's them in multithreaded. This is primary due to the 980 and 1100 having their clocks being TDP limited, physics is a hard and cruel master. I don't mind people speculating and theory-crafting but the incessant "it's worse then phenom II" is horribly incorrect.
fx8350 vs 1100T
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=697
fx8350 vs 980
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/362?vs=697