AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[jdwii]

Also when the 290 comes out who know's maybe it wont have to throttle and it could even about the same performance but for cheaper.

 

[esrever]

yea, 290 looks much better in terms how the thermals and power is shaping up for the 290x. I would imagine the 290 still beating the 780 most of the time in 1440p

 

[palladin9479]

Noise levels are a big problem for gaming rigs. Nothing ruins your experience like hearing the high whining sound of your GPU's. It's the entire reason I went WC, just got tired of hearing my GTX 285's while I was playing something. People who are used to it won't realize how much it's hurting them until they play on a nice rig that doesn't make sound.

Lets see what ASUS ROG does with the card.

 

[noob2222]

Noise levels are a big problem for gaming rigs. Nothing ruins your experience like hearing the high whining sound of your GPU's. It's the entire reason I went WC, just got tired of hearing my GTX 285's while I was playing something. People who are used to it won't realize how much it's hurting them until they play on a nice rig that doesn't make sound.

Lets see what ASUS ROG does with the card.

didn't take EK long to release the heatsink for the 290x.

http://www.techpowerup.com/192982/ek-debuts-water-block-for-amd-radeon-r9-290x.html

 

[de5_Roy]

Next Gen Graphics and Process Migration: 20 nm and Beyond
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Next-Gen-Graphics-and-Process-Migration-20-nm-and-Beyond

 

[juanrga]

My point is: AMD is not releasing products for a ~0.3% of market. That is why there is no FX 8-core Steamroller, neither Steamroller Warsaw.

Have faith.. According to your logic, AMD would not have produced the 7970, it is only 0.7% of the share, like plenty of other cards... Aaand because steam is the only service people use for gaming..... The 8 core share is slowly growing..

Well, 0.7 is more than double than 0.3. Look at the almost inexistent market share of 7990 and rumours:

Weak demand and stiff competition from NVIDIA's offerings could lead to AMD discontinuing its flagship graphics card, the Radeon HD 7990

Also yesterday AMD is not today AMD, the market has also changed: desktop is dropping and what would be feasible product yesterday is no more today.

how can amd make a single 'core' cpu after going through all the trouble of introducing modules and bulldozer uarch? the minimum cpu 'block' is a single module, dual 'core' cpu.

Look at Intel; they are not fabricating single-core CPUs and there is no modules involved in their decision.

You are inverting the cause-effect order here. It is not that AMD doesn't fabricate single-cores because the module is dual, but that they designed a dual-core module because AMD considered dual to be the minimum: aka they already decided don't fabricate single-cores by questions of market share.

You seem to believe that using defective silicon always generate revenue, which is not true. Plot the money from reusing that silicon against the money spent on fabricating, testing, packaging, storing, shipping... products. There is a minimum market/price-point beyond which you lost more money by making those products than by just rejecting the defective silicon. That is why AMD is not selling single cores, for instance.

For illustration: consider the extreme case you reuse that defective silicon ($100M) and fabricate product Y ($100M) which nobody purchases. You are loosing $200M, but if you ignore the defective silicon you only miss $100M.

That's not remotely how binning works.

You create product A at a cost of $100M USD per batch. You would sell that batch at a premium for $200M USD. The batch has 50% yields meaning half the dies aren't good enough to sell for full price. now ordinarily you'd throw away that 50% and take the $50M loss (really $100M after profit is counted). During QA you determine that 80% of that batch is perfectly functional at a lower level, you then sell that defective batch at a discount with a different product name. You end up recouping your original production costs, sometimes even making a profit. Worst case scenario you have to sell it at a loss (under original production cost) and use the money to defray that sunk cost vs just eating the whole thing. Can also use the negative profit margin as a tax write off.

Did you know the FX4xxx and FX6xxx CPU's are just defective FX8xxx CPUs? They are all the exact same die. They come off the exact same production line. The chips with one defective module are labeled fx6xxx series, the ones with two defective modules are labeled fx4xxx series. Anymore then that and the die is considered useless and is scratched. APU's are no different, the lower model APU's are just defective dies from the top tier model.

Another aspect of binning is that often there is significantly more demand for the lower or midrange binned product then the final perfect one. To meet this demand the company will take it's perfect chips and deliberately mark them as the inferior product. Better to make a smaller profit off a chip you are selling then no profit off a chip sitting in the warehouse. Enthusiasts eventually found out about this practice and developed various tricks to unlock unlock the chips deliberately disabled potential. And thus the overclocking world was born, people turning Pentium 166's into Pentium 200's, AMD K6 250's to 300's and all the rest is history. Eventually that become an actual selling point via unlocked processors. They are only guaranteed to provide the rated performance but the manufacturer decided to not lock it and leave it up to the consumer to try for higher then rated.

Now continue the argument, link with the bold part in above quote and you almost get it.

Consider the dies that didn't pass FX6 qualifications cost $100M. Take those $100M and add the cost to use those dies for FX4 chips; this includes: fabrication (including printing FX4xxx labels on the chip), additional quality testing, packaging, storing, shipping to distributors... The cost also includes the cost of maintaining the inventory, custom taxes for international shipping, web pages for the product, and so on. Imagine the whole cost are another $100M.

Now assume during an instant that nobody want to buy FX4 series chips, if you are fabricating them you are loosing $200M and it is better if you stop at the splitting point where some dies didn't pass FX6 qualifications and put in the trash those dies.

 

[juanrga]

If steamroller is 30% better than piledriver, what is the Intel equivalent then ?

More or less AMD's Steamroller will be on the same performance tie as Intel's Sandy Bridge. SR 4C @4GHz ~ SB 4C @3.2GHz

 

[juanrga]

Next Gen Graphics and Process Migration: 20 nm and Beyond
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Next-Gen-Graphics-and-Process-Migration-20-nm-and-Beyond

The interesting part is this

While TSMC had opened their 28 nm HKMG nearly two years ago, it was less than a year ago that GF opened their 28 nm line to customers. So far the designs from GF’s 28 nm have essentially been smaller SOCs from players like MediaTek and Rockchip. AMD’s Kaveri APU has been delayed from what looks to be fabrication issues rather than design issues. We do not expect to see Kaveri in mass quantities until Q1 2014. GF has been behind the times when it comes to process technology, but some interesting things have come up that could change the landscape.

SOI Strikes Again

Who all thought that SOI was dead after AMD decided to stop using it after moving away from GF’s 32 nm PD-SOI process? Well, more than a few, but the truth is SOI is a very handy technology that is used in many other products, one of which is high speed RF switching applications. AMD has been utilizing PD-SOI for many generations of parts. Partially-Depleted is an older and well understood substrate that has done very well for AMD. Unfortunately for AMD, 32 nm was really the last gasp for PD-SOI. Going below that size, the electrical characteristics of PD-SOI are not that much better than bulk silicon. Though there is a positive difference, it is not enough to justify the 10% to 15% increase in wafer costs and slightly more complex manufacturing process.

[...]

FD-SOI wafers are not being mass produced at this time, though production can be ramped up fairly quickly. GF has yet to implement 28 nm FD-SOI at any of their fabs and the timeline for manufacturing products on this process has yet to be determined (or at least released to the general public).

[...]

GF has only now started mass production of the latest generation of AMD APUs based on 28 nm. The previous Kabini APUs were all produced by TSMC on their 28 nm process.

Which confirms my claim that Kaveri is being made at 28nm bulk. Kaveri is not SOI as some 'well-informed' posters repeat again and again here 😀

Regarding the article conclusions about Glofo. I disagree. I am pessimistic about the future of FD-SOI. I doubt any main chip-maker will chose 14nm FD-SOI.

 

[de5_Roy]

Look at Intel; they are not fabricating single-core CPUs and there is no modules involved in their decision.

why would i look at intel? their cpu design is different and not even remotely related to your claim.

You are inverting the cause-effect order here. It is not that AMD doesn't fabricate single-cores because the module is dual, but that they designed a dual-core module because AMD considered dual to be the minimum: aka they already decided don't fabricate single-cores by questions of market share.

underline mine: wrong interpretation, again. you're making up imaginary causes for engineering and architectural decisions and trying to divert. core-marketshare pie chart didn't dictate amd making the module dual core (i.e. capable of executing two threads), it was to build the uarch modular and scalable while sharing resources within the module and save cost.

 

[juanrga]

I think I got confirmation by AMD that the 3 ALU per core diagram given in a recent talk is not Steamroller/Kaveri.

 

[Ranth]

Is it just me or is there a lot of differences on the reviews?
Tom's and Anand put it pretty high however other sites and some youtubers (OC3D TV, LinusTechTips) It's on bar or below 780, so I'm not really sure about this.

 

[juanrga]

Look at Intel; they are not fabricating single-core CPUs and there is no modules involved in their decision.

why would i look at intel? their cpu design is different and not even remotely related to your claim.

Because I was explaining you why neither Intel nor AMD are making single cores anymore. The reason is not related to Bulldozer modules.

You are inverting the cause-effect order here. It is not that AMD doesn't fabricate single-cores because the module is dual, but that they designed a dual-core module because AMD considered dual to be the minimum: aka they already decided don't fabricate single-cores by questions of market share.

underline mine: wrong interpretation, again. you're making up imaginary causes for engineering and architectural decisions and trying to divert. core-marketshare pie chart didn't dictate amd making the module dual core (i.e. capable of executing two threads), it was to build the uarch modular and scalable while sharing resources within the module and save cost.

Nope. Engineering decisions are tied to market. This is business ok? If the market share for single cores was of 95% then AMD had never introduce dual-core modules. They introduced modules for saving costs and for scaling above four cores whereas maintaining acceptable sizes.

I don't understand why you insist on believing that AMD is not making single cores due to the modular design prohibiting them. Are you aware that AMD jaguar is not based in modules?

Using your logic AMD would be releasing single core jaguar chips.

Returning to the origin of this discussion: AMD is not releasing FX 8-core Steamroller because there is no enough market for that.

 

[de5_Roy]

Because I was explaining you why neither Intel nor AMD are making single cores anymore. It is not anything related to Bulldozer modules, despite your insistence.

wow. you're the one mentioned intel. i did not insist, in any way. your explanation was wrong anyway.

Engineering decisions are tied to market. This is business ok?If the market share for single cores was of a 95% then AMD had never introduced modules.

this is outright bullcrap. because single core has majority when the whole market is taken into account. amd (and intel) introduced their dual cores when single core had vast majority, i forgot how much. even if single core had 95% marketshare as in your scenario, physics, drive for more performance would eventually drive everyone, not just amd, to multicore, not just dual core. and it did so. you made a very, very poor argument here, by ignoring vital factors.

They introduced modules for saving costs and for scaling above six cores whereas maintaining acceptable sizes. But they chose a dual core module because when the decision was taken dual was the minimum profitable market share.

not for scaling above six cores. for scaling and modularity, period. i don't know why this keeps going over your head - they chose dual core (i.e. executing 2 threads) module because it was the right engineering decision. more than 2 woulda cut into r&d and cost, less than 2 woulda drive up power draw and cost.

I don't understand why you insist on believing that AMD is not making single cores due to the modular design prohibiting them. Are you aware that AMD jaguar is not based in modules?

orly. you need take a look at the jaguar architecture again. at least, now i know that you don't understand.

Using your logic AMD would be releasing single core jaguar chips.

again with the diversion...
by 'my logic'? please stop making up 'my logic'. my point was that kaveri is dual module not because of marketshare but because it was designed that way.

Returning to the origin of this discussion: AMD is not releasing FX 8-core Steamroller because there is no enough market for that.

that's not even the origin. i only replied when you misinterpreted the core-marketshare pie chart.

 

[tracker45]

How do we know they won't flop like Bulldozer , which was only about 1% faster than Phenom ?

 

[8350rocks]

I think I got confirmation by AMD that the 3 ALU per core diagram given in a recent talk is not Steamroller/Kaveri.

Not Kaveri, doesn't mean not steamroller...

 

[juanrga]

Engineering decisions are tied to market. This is business ok?If the market share for single cores was of a 95% then AMD had never introduced modules.

this is outright bullcrap. because single core has majority when the whole market is taken into account. amd (and intel) introduced their dual cores when single core had vast majority, i forgot how much.

When you introduce a new product its market share is zero before introducing it. This is a triviality that someone mentioned before and that I already replied a pair of posts ago.

They introduced modules for saving costs and for scaling above six cores whereas maintaining acceptable sizes. But they chose a dual core module because when the decision was taken dual was the minimum profitable market share.

not for scaling above six cores. for scaling and modularity, period.

For scaling above six cores. Six-core non-modular designs existed before, AMD couldn't release 8/12/16-core Bulldozer chips without the new module design and they did need those cores for competing with Intel.

I don't understand why you insist on believing that AMD is not making single cores due to the modular design prohibiting them. Are you aware that AMD jaguar is not based in modules?

orly. you need take a look at the jaguar architecture again. at least, now i know that you don't understand.

Jaguar != bulldozer. There is no modules in jaguar.

Using your logic AMD would be releasing single core jaguar chips.

again with the diversion...
by 'my logic'? please stop making up 'my logic'. my point was that kaveri is dual module not because of marketshare but because it was designed that way.

The original point was the explanation of why AMD is not releasing 3M/4M/6M/8M Steamroller chips. There is no enough market for them.

I then tried to use the fact that AMD (neither Intel) are fabricating single-core chips as illustration of how market share affects chip design.

You took that, avoided the main point and then went with a right but trivial argument that Kaveri is not single core because a module has two cores. Sure, but the module dual-core design was introduced because AMD was not going to make single cores anymore...

 

[juanrga]

How do we know they won't flop like Bulldozer , which was only about 1% faster than Phenom ?

Because we know (we measure it) that the shared decoder in a Bulldozer/Piledriver module introduces about 20% performance penalization. Steamroller doubling the decoder per module recovers that 20%. That is why we expect at least ~20% performance gain. Depending of further modifications made to the architecture (better cache, improved integer units, improved memory controller...) we could see even a 40% gain, but I think this is unlikely and that 20% is a more realistic measure

Let us see.

 

[juanrga]

I think I got confirmation by AMD that the 3 ALU per core diagram given in a recent talk is not Steamroller/Kaveri.

Not Kaveri, doesn't mean not steamroller...

Are you aware that Kaveri CPU uses Steamroller?

 

[8350rocks]

Returning to the origin of this discussion: AMD is not releasing FX 8-core Steamroller because there is no enough market for that.

I seriously think this part is entirely rubbish. There is most certainly a market for it, and it is pretty substantial; however, they're losing a great deal of that business to the 4770k unless they act sooner than later.

I suppose you would argue there is no market for the 4770k then? 4c/8t chips are the same thing as 8c/8t chips in the grander scheme of things.

The 8 core AMD chips are aiming at the 4 core market...last time I checked, that market share had actually passed 50% of the PC market in the US. Considering every house has at least one PC, that means there are at minimum 175 million quad core PCs in the US alone. Think they couldn't take some of the 4 core i7 business with a hot 8 core that could keep up at single thread workloads? I know they would seriously compete...

 

[blackkstar]

Please stop with this FUD. DT overall is declining but Gaming PCs are rapidly growing.

http://techreport.com/news/25197/as-overall-pc-market-declines-growth-expected-in-gaming-hardware

PC market is "dying" because the folks who had desktops to check on Facebook and social sites and not much else are replacing them with tablets, phones, etc.

The Gaming PC market is growing because people aren't happy with consoles anymore and the barrier to entry for a decent gaming rig is not high. For a little more than Xbone you can get a decent gaming rig, and if you have parts from previous builds (like monitors, keyboards, etc) you can really make out well.

gaming PC will continue to grow. AMD is doing everything it can do help it grow right now (making ports easier, providing top end hardware for PCs, providing console hardware, providing tools for console developers).

If/when AMD releases a HEDT cpu, it will look significantly different from bdver2 and bdver1. If you remember, AMD designed it as a server chip first and a PC chip second, meaning it's more focused for integer workloads.

AMD is pushing gaming really hard and it's the big growth sector in desktops. They have a chip that is not that strong at float, which games love, and is strong in integers.

I would not be surprised if SR for HEDT was completely cancelled and that crazy chip we saw with the beefed up FPUs was what was going to replace it. AMD would sell more CPUs if they were focused on gaming as opposed to servers.

So the theory I'm proposing is that AMD will let ARM + Jaguar take over servers and then release a dCPU that is more optimized for games.

The evidence I'm using for this argument is that:

The die shot leak has a beefed up FPU
AMD claims they are focusing on higher growth markets
AMDs dCPU right now is aimed at a low growth market
Gaming PC is a relatively high growth market.

Therefore, AMD might change their dCPU design such that it fits more in line with the needs of games as opposed to servers.

Existing SR design is a server chip with a fixed front end. AMD has control of game software now very well with their console wins. I expect them to capitalize on it rather heavily.

 

[-Fran-]

The "Modules" are 1 core + 0.6 of a core, right? Just like Intel's are 1 core + 0.3 of a core, right?

In my own vision, going past the blur PR and tech documentation gives us, FX8xxx are still glorified 4 core CPUs, just like Intel's. DO NOT FORGET.

Is there market for a 4 core + something? Yes there is.

Cheers!

 

[de5_Roy]

When you introduce a new product its market share is zero before introducing it. This is a triviality that someone mentioned before and that I already replied a pair of posts ago.

it's not a trivial matter. the products are introduced to drive forward and because the industry and customers' demands. that's how from zero marketshare it becomes substantial.

For scaling above six cores. Six-core non-modular designs existed before, AMD couldn't release 8/12/16-core Bulldozer chips without the new module design and they did need those cores for competing with Intel.

lol. you conveniently forgot multi chip module cpus e.g. magny cours. only problem is that those would be too costly for consumers. but those did compete against intel.

Jaguar != bulldozer. There is no modules in jaguar.

you're the one mentioned jaguar. now you're the one trying to stir up a side-argument. poor attempt at diversion.
and there are modules in jaguar. it depends on what you call module. the lowest block is 2/4 cores with shared cache - that's jaguar's module.

The original point was the explanation of why AMD is not releasing 3M/4M/6M/8M Steamroller chips. There is no enough market for them.

selective amnesia? here's your post:

This is the chart
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-11-19/146a.jpg
That 2012 data shows that dual and quad-cores make for >90% of the market, whereas octo-cores make for 1%. That data coincides very well with last Steam stats, except that last Steam statistics give 0.3% for octo-cores.

Those numbers are the reason why Kaveri comes as dual and quad-core and there is no FX octo-core Steamroller.

to reply to your 'original point'(!) (post-selective-amnesia) - amd's product launch hasn't even started, yet you claim amd Is Not releasing such cpus. i already said i am not gonna touch on that...or try to stay away from it as much as possible, lol.

I then tried to use the fact that AMD (neither Intel) are fabricating single-core chips as illustration of how market share affects chip design.

i ignored it before because it was wrong statement. amd and intel do not fabricate new single core cpus simply because single core performance have hit a limit. marketshare is not even the top reason. the real reasons are laws of physics and demand for higher performance and above all, money.

You took that, avoided the main point and then went with a right but trivial argument that Kaveri is not single core because a module has two cores. Sure, but the module dual-core design was introduced because AMD was not going to make single cores anymore...

i already said i won't talk about (or try not to talk) sr cpus as i have too little information on them. i already posted your 'main point' since you seem to have made yourself forget that. amd's not making single cores do not have anything to do with marketshare, read the paragraph above. my argument was not "Kaveri is not single core because a module has two cores". nowhere near that. shows how much you paid attention to the text.

 

[8350rocks]

Also yesterday AMD is not today AMD, the market has also changed: desktop is dropping and what would be feasible product yesterday is no more today.

Please stop with this FUD. DT overall is declining but Gaming PCs are rapidly growing.

http://techreport.com/news/25197/as-overall-pc-market-declines-growth-expected-in-gaming-hardware

PC market is "dying" because the folks who had desktops to check on Facebook and social sites and not much else are replacing them with tablets, phones, etc.

The Gaming PC market is growing because people aren't happy with consoles anymore and the barrier to entry for a decent gaming rig is not high. For a little more than Xbone you can get a decent gaming rig, and if you have parts from previous builds (like monitors, keyboards, etc) you can really make out well.

gaming PC will continue to grow. AMD is doing everything it can do help it grow right now (making ports easier, providing top end hardware for PCs, providing console hardware, providing tools for console developers).

If/when AMD releases a HEDT cpu, it will look significantly different from bdver2 and bdver1. If you remember, AMD designed it as a server chip first and a PC chip second, meaning it's more focused for integer workloads.

AMD is pushing gaming really hard and it's the big growth sector in desktops. They have a chip that is not that strong at float, which games love, and is strong in integers.

I would not be surprised if SR for HEDT was completely cancelled and that crazy chip we saw with the beefed up FPUs was what was going to replace it. AMD would sell more CPUs if they were focused on gaming as opposed to servers.

So the theory I'm proposing is that AMD will let ARM + Jaguar take over servers and then release a dCPU that is more optimized for games.

The evidence I'm using for this argument is that:

The die shot leak has a beefed up FPU
AMD claims they are focusing on higher growth markets
AMDs dCPU right now is aimed at a low growth market
Gaming PC is a relatively high growth market.

Therefore, AMD might change their dCPU design such that it fits more in line with the needs of games as opposed to servers.

Existing SR design is a server chip with a fixed front end. AMD has control of game software now very well with their console wins. I expect them to capitalize on it rather heavily.

I agree with this viewpoint.

 

[juanrga]

Returning to the origin of this discussion: AMD is not releasing FX 8-core Steamroller because there is no enough market for that.

I seriously think this part is entirely rubbish. There is most certainly a market for it, and it is pretty substantial; however, they're losing a great deal of that business to the 4770k unless they act sooner than later.

I suppose you would argue there is no market for the 4770k then? 4c/8t chips are the same thing as 8c/8t chips in the grander scheme of things.

The 8 core AMD chips are aiming at the 4 core market...last time I checked, that market share had actually passed 50% of the PC market in the US. Considering every house has at least one PC, that means there are at minimum 175 million quad core PCs in the US alone. Think they couldn't take some of the 4 core i7 business with a hot 8 core that could keep up at single thread workloads? I know they would seriously compete...

You cannot translate market share from a company to another. A company that is economically healthy can afford niche markets, whereas a company who was in the red some months ago cannot.

i7-4770k and FX-8350 are not mainstream. Stop from pretending that 50% of the market would be interested in a FD-SOI 5GHz 8-core FX Steamroller.

Please stop with this FUD. DT overall is declining but Gaming PCs are rapidly growing.

http://techreport.com/news/25197/as-overall-pc-market-declines-growth-expected-in-gaming-hardware

PC market is "dying" because the folks who had desktops to check on Facebook and social sites and not much else are replacing them with tablets, phones, etc.

The Gaming PC market is growing because people aren't happy with consoles anymore and the barrier to entry for a decent gaming rig is not high. For a little more than Xbone you can get a decent gaming rig, and if you have parts from previous builds (like monitors, keyboards, etc) you can really make out well.

gaming PC will continue to grow. AMD is doing everything it can do help it grow right now (making ports easier, providing top end hardware for PCs, providing console hardware, providing tools for console developers).

If/when AMD releases a HEDT cpu, it will look significantly different from bdver2 and bdver1. If you remember, AMD designed it as a server chip first and a PC chip second, meaning it's more focused for integer workloads.

AMD is pushing gaming really hard and it's the big growth sector in desktops. They have a chip that is not that strong at float, which games love, and is strong in integers.

I would not be surprised if SR for HEDT was completely cancelled and that crazy chip we saw with the beefed up FPUs was what was going to replace it. AMD would sell more CPUs if they were focused on gaming as opposed to servers.

So the theory I'm proposing is that AMD will let ARM + Jaguar take over servers and then release a dCPU that is more optimized for games.

The evidence I'm using for this argument is that:

The die shot leak has a beefed up FPU
AMD claims they are focusing on higher growth markets
AMDs dCPU right now is aimed at a low growth market
Gaming PC is a relatively high growth market.

Therefore, AMD might change their dCPU design such that it fits more in line with the needs of games as opposed to servers.

Existing SR design is a server chip with a fixed front end. AMD has control of game software now very well with their console wins. I expect them to capitalize on it rather heavily.

Take the 0.3% share adds a 6.5% grow predicted by JPR and the result is 0.3%: 0.3x1.065=0,3195 which rounds to 0.3. Now takes 91% and add the same growth you obtain 97%. Therefore it is natural that AMD is releasing products for ~97% of the market.

I see no evidence for what you claim. What I see is what follows.

1) AMD is migrating from CPUs to APUs. Nov. conference has been renamed as APU 3.
2) Server roadmaps suggest no SR FX 8-core. Warsaw uses PD.
3) Centurion labeling as FX-9000 series suggest there is no more FX.
4) Some docs seem to suggest that FX series is finished.
5) Contrary to common misconception MANTLE has been released with APUs in mind. Increasing 50% top dGPU is not so important like increasing 50% the performance of an APU
6) New W8.1 drivers released to increase APU performance during gaming
7) Slides such as this

Look to the first item in the "FROM".

FROM here must be taken as synonym for "yesterday AMD"

 

[Cazalan]

The "Modules" are 1 core + 0.6 of a core, right? Just like Intel's are 1 core + 0.3 of a core, right?

In my own vision, going past the blur PR and tech documentation gives us, FX8xxx are still glorified 4 core CPUs, just like Intel's. DO NOT FORGET.

Is there market for a 4 core + something? Yes there is.

Cheers!

It's not that simple. FX8 parts do have 8 cores, they're just not as strong as Intel cores because it's 2 ALU vs 3 ALU. That gives Intel cores an advantage.

In retrospect AMD could have made the "module" a single 4 ALU core. That would have been better for traditional PC workloads.