AMD Promises "Completely Different" CPU Architecture To Succeed Barcelona

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Betting its 2 billion Transistor job, Its Bulldozer job & that AMD will continue in 2.o ghz range, as its only really plausable range to improve within. Triple X Rated for MultiCore useage.
By Developing Third Data Crossbar, lying within L3 Cache, It will have some Guts that are HereToFor Unseen.

Signed😛HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
 
I Think this is a very good move on AMD part considering all the negitive things with the bug and the unsure that it is stable, starting brand new would in future terms best solution to catch up to Intel.
 
Is there really any new information in the above or linked article?
The only so called news i see is the quote "solve problems that today we think can never be addressed by hardware." a natural result of the new architecture breaking the CPU down into modules that can be put together as AMD sees fit to target specific markets.
A good google search on the words AMD Bulldocer will tell you that and more.
 
I think that architecturally, AMD is in a better position here to implement the desired protocols. AMD's current technology scales very well, and is very flexible.

I am very much looking forward to the return of 'co-processor' technology, as well as better use of the GPU residing in your graphics card. The overall capability of your desktop will be absolutely staggering compared to even the fastest x86 architecture (once the software issues have been ironed out of course). Naturally, mobile devices will also be follow.

The sooner we go away from letting the CPU do all the work the better in my opinion..I remember using such a design with the Commodore Amiga range of computers and the multi-tasking capability of that machine was streets ahead of everything else.
 
I couldn't be bothered, the days of AMD64 making Pentiums look like typewriters are long gone. Perhaps like 3Dfx even. As long as AMD can feed the n00bs and keep Intel competitive, i couldn't care less what they came up with.
 
i think we can expact more from the bulldozer core then we have seen on improvement with the phenom. the phenom indeed is faster then today's fastest athlon dual core but it comes just to late and its clock speeds as its cache still beg for improvement. while the bulldozer core offers much improment. there for i hope AMD is well prepaird next for comming year and hopefully they show us some great results.
 
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. The same things were being said about K10. K10 has barely been launched and they are talking up next gen already?

Even if it is better... it will either be in the distant future (2+ years) or they are telling people that people buying a K10 will be purchasing a soon to be obsolete architecture.

Neither condition is good - why would I upgrade to a K10 which is marginally better than a K8 (if they can get clocks up), rather than wait for this great new architecture?
 
I have no clue about their new architecture and could care less, but if it gives good performance, and I don't have to pay 1400 for a processor, I'm all for it and I wish them well in their pursuit of that.
 
OMG, AMD suxx!!! I know because I read it on the int3rw3b!!!

I love my Phenom 9500(OMG B2 stepping), it's fast and stable. I upgraded from a Core2Duo e6600 to it, and it was a very worthwhile upgrade. I think it's safe to say that everyone who's posted thus far doesn't own one, they've just read propaganda articles + other peoples benchmarks, and go and repeat the information they've read to make themselves feel cool and knowledgeable. If Intel completes the copying of all of AMDs platform features(nehalem) first, then AMD might have some problems, but if Bulldozer comes out before, or around the same time, then nobody can say at this point in time who's going to win that round. For the time being, Hypertransport 3.0 FTW.
 
I used to own an Amiga back in the 80's. Indeed the architecture of that computer (Motorola cpu, 3 co-processors) was leaps and bounds ahead of anything the PC could offer at the time.

Today's heavy demands on eye-candy and frames-per-second would require a newer breed of co-processing architecture. Without argument, it is the GPU that has become the performance indicator and space-hog inside today's pc's, especially the triple-sli double-slot arrangements that eat power and slot space.

I have been advocating ever since the advent of SLI that a radical redesign of the PC is necessary. We are no longer using 16-color displays to run DOS windows full of 80x40 text, yet it is exactly this obsolete dinosaur spec that continues to manifest itself in the PC and drag down advancement.

But by using the gpu as a coprocessor, it opens up a whole new world of development. With the coming of 32 and 25nm technologies, it will be possible to place 4 gpu cores on a single chip. Now you can imagine a dual socket board where one socket has your 8-core cpu and the next socket has your 4-core gpu with it's on-die memory controller. That memory controller ties directly into ONE memory slot on the motherboard that allows you to add/change gpu memory. Add physics capability to the gpu and you begin to see the advantages again of the co-processor design architecture.
 
New architecture? Ooo man, this is old news, Intel got better road map planned already. This is probably good news to AMD hardcore fans. Hmm where is that Aussie AMDFanGirl.
LAWL, AMD is a joke, just feeding the budget ppl might help them survive.
 
[citation][nom]MTLance[/nom]New architecture? Ooo man, this is old news, Intel got better road map planned already. This is probably good news to AMD hardcore fans. Hmm where is that Aussie AMDFanGirl.LAWL, AMD is a joke, just feeding the budget ppl might help them survive.[/citation]

If you really think AMD is a joke then perhaps you should look at the work AMD has done in the IGP market..including the latest 780 chipsets. You may just find that these devices are much, much faster than Intel's offerings and also run on a small fabrication process. You may also want to talk to the University of Texas, who recently built one of the most powerful super-computers on the face of the planet, using AMD parts. AMD is not just about Phenom and considering AMD doesn't have nowhere near Intel's resources I think you are being a bit unfair.

Both corporations have roadmaps that incorporate GPGPU processing capability..it's just a matter of when, no if. AMD is good at developing the protocols on which these devices will run, and incorporating them into current designs. This is much easier with current AMD architecture than it is with Intel's. That's not to say AMD isn't having issues but I think you are being very unfair - remember just how long Intel has been playing catch-up and what it took to manufacture Core 2 architecture. That's how good AMD can be.
 
[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]I couldn't be bothered, the days of AMD64 making Pentiums look like typewriters are long gone. Perhaps like 3Dfx even. As long as AMD can feed the n00bs and keep Intel competitive, i couldn't care less what they came up with.[/citation]

April 2008.

'Cray to build an almost-Petaflop supercomputer for the University of Tennessee '

..using AMD technology.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Cray-Supercomputer-UT,news-27904.html
 
[citation][nom]hankst[/nom]why would I upgrade to a K10 which is marginally better than a K8 (if they can get clocks up), rather than wait for this great new architecture?[/citation]

Answer is quite clear, because it's cheaper to build the AMD system than the new Intel system you'll need soon to use Intels comming processors 😉
 
I just want good gaming on the cheap!
AMD already messed up the whole AM2 -- AM2+ compatibility thing.
AMD needs to stick to some of those promises it makes, otherwise it's going to lose all the street cred it took decades to build.
 
[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]Answer is quite clear, because it's cheaper to build the AMD system than the new Intel system you'll need soon to use Intels comming processors [/citation]

Thanks - but I wasn't talking about buying an Intel system - why must the fans come out and make everything Intel vs AMD? There would be no reason to upgrade to K10 at all and might as well just hunker down until this great new architecture comes out (or go the Intel route later). The problem is AMD has to sell K10's for the next 2-3 years and the main benefit of it was the drop-in upgrade. Now there are all sorts of compatibility issues, and it doesn't appear to be enough of a leap in performance to justify upgrading in the first place. And if I was to start from scratch, it would probably be an Intel system based on performance for a few extra bucks (and the fact that I will use a discrete gfx card)
 
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Intel can kick AMD butt with new integrated FSB. Yeah, it is wayyyyyyyyyyy better than AMD. And super computers can be powered by Intel inside by then. IBM still pwns with BlueGene yay big blue the ultimate giant.
AMD is no where to be seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom