AMD "Zembezi

[illfindu]

Hey im looking towards the future and I'm eyeing the AMD 8 core bulldozer CPU'S coming down the line. I'v seen some source say there going to use a AM3+ Socket and im wondering if that means youll be able to toss one in a current AM3+ compatible board?
Will my current http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130297&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Motherboards+-+AMD-_-MSI-_-13130297 msi 870A Fuzion work i noticed just now that its a AM3 not a AM3+ I'm guessing that means ill need a new mother board cause the sockets are comparable?

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I am not saying BD is going to suck. Just that its hard to say with no real basic info beyond the arch itself.

It may be amazing or it could suck.



I think it depends on the actual job thats being done. In servers this may be true. But on consumer desktops it may be different. AMD tends to focus on server design more than consumer design due to the larger profits to be made in that market.

I say wait and see. I think the idea is interesting but I don't think it will achieve 90-95% or a real core since it has to share a lot of the CPUs parts.

Under heavy Floating Point loads, Bulldozer will act more like a 4 core product. Most heavy FP tasks are offloaded to the GPU these days (Games) but certain applications (HD Video Transcoding) does require a decent enough FP load of math.

I think it disingenuous to call it an 8 "Core" processor as it is not. Anyone stating otherwise is attempting to mislead others.

That being said... in a few die shrinks from now... the module approach could become quite lucrative (especially with the advent of OpenCL GPU offloading for FP loads).

EDIT: You can see why AMD is going this route. They own a Graphics company (ATi) and this marriage of sorts will lead to some great platforms (as we're seeing with the Ontario APU platform today).

 

[enzo matrix]

There seems to be more misinterpretation of the information than there is actual misinformation though.

You guys might want to check out the blogs in their "server" products blog area. Note also that more information is revealed in the comments in the threads by the author of the articles than is revealed in the actual articles. Note also that it is specific to servers, though it is assumed the architecture itself will be the same in both server and client products.

 

[jimmysmitty]

There seems to be more misinterpretation of the information than there is actual misinformation though.

You guys might want to check out the blogs in their "server" products blog area. Note also that more information is revealed in the comments in the threads by the author of the articles than is revealed in the actual articles. Note also that it is specific to servers, though it is assumed the architecture itself will be the same in both server and client products.

I don't think this is misinterpretation:

From what I can find thats what AMDs 8 core (Module) will be.

We have no idea what it will be able to do. There is no way to guess for sure.

That shows the way Intels SMT works and the way AMDs CMT will work. It looks to be much more powerful than SMT but does it mean a 4 module BD core will be able to keep up with a true quad core? No. It means it will be better than SMT. As to how much better is what we have to wait and see.

 

[dogman_1234]

Here is to explain:

1 Bulldozer core can handle the basic 64 bit registry processing.

2 Bulldozer cores reside in a system called a 'module'. This 'module' enables 2 cores to work with each other to process data.

Now, Bulldozer will have 4 'modules':

2 x 4= 8 processing cores.

Now, the cores in each 'module' will share cached memory and communicate with other cores initially.

 

[Hellboy]

Didnt Intel do this sort of thing with the Core 2 Quad double cheese burger which so many amd fans bitched about...

Maybe it worked back then as software was dual core optimized but now programmers are learning how to multi core program - let the battle commence..

 

[turboflame]

Didnt Intel do this sort of thing with the Core 2 Quad double cheese burger which so many amd fans bitched about...

No, the "double cheeseburger" thing was that Intel slapped two Core 2 Duo dies onto the same substrate. This really has absolutely nothing to do with bulldozer.

 

[Hellboy]

No, the "double cheeseburger" thing was that Intel slapped two Core 2 Duo dies onto the same substrate. This really has absolutely nothing to do with bulldozer.

so its a double whopper side by side then

 

[enzo matrix]

No, the "double cheeseburger" thing was that Intel slapped two Core 2 Duo dies onto the same substrate. This really has absolutely nothing to do with bulldozer.

Anyone know if it was two separate dies or the same die just side by side on the die?

 

[dogman_1234]

It was two dies on the same substrate.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Anyone know if it was two separate dies or the same die just side by side on the die?

Core 2 DUo was a true dual core. It was Core 2 Quad that they complained about which was two Core 2 Duos stiched together via the FSB.

And AMD already did the MCM approach with Magny-Cours so they already ate their words.

BD on the other hand is a module approach but it means they can cut "modules" when needed but two each time. Each chip will be monolithic but still ..... not sure.

But BD should not be MCM, at least for the 8 "core" version and lower.

 

[dogman_1234]

And AMD already did the MCM approach with Magny-Cours so they already ate their words.

I do NOT know why they did that? maybe JF can answer that one.

 

[EXT64]

To get the core count up ... and because it is not really that huge of a negative (if Intel didn't already prove that with C2Q vs Phenom I).

 

[BaronMatrix]

The 6 core i7s never came down in price (though it would be awesome if 8 core SBs were semi-affordable).

LAUGHTER ECHOES THROUGH THE DARK RECESSES OF YOUR MIND...

 

[BaronMatrix]

If you compare a 8 core SB chip with a 8 "core" BD chip its not the same. Each SB core has its own resources while each core in BD shares resources. Thats the reason why AMD is calling the modules instead of ccores because they are not each a full core.

It is AMDs version of SMT (called CMT) on a higher level. It means that their version should produce better results than SMT which normally can push 20% better threaded performance, this should be much higher.

But calling the each real cores is a lie because in fact they are not each true cores.

It would be like calling each core in Atom a real CPU core when in fact they are just parts of the CPU core.

Don't ask your friends. Don't ask JF. Don't ask me. Don't promote yourself to Distinguished Engineer.

ASK THE WINDOWS TASK MANAGER.

 

[dogman_1234]

...or Ask Jeeves.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I do NOT know why they did that? maybe JF can answer that one.

Simple, as EXT64 said. To get more cores. As much as AMD mocked Intel for that approach, they knew it worked. It got Intel to a quad core first that worked great and was cheaper and easier to produce rather than a monolitich 65nm die,. Thats also why Phenom had a lot of heat issues, AMDs 65nm wasn't their best process. In fact their 90nm X2s were better than the 65nm X2s.

LAUGHTER ECHOES THROUGH THE DARK RECESSES OF YOUR MIND...

Don't ask your friends. Don't ask JF. Don't ask me. Don't promote yourself to Distinguished Engineer.

ASK THE WINDOWS TASK MANAGER.

See ya on the far side.

 

[Hellboy]

why oh why is any resonable discussion ruined by someone with a AMD processor planted in his anus and a void where their brain is...

how many threads have been locked by lunacy ramblings of people who no matter what will not take comic comments and their on sided views

if a product is a failure for what ever reason then its a failure

if its a success then its a success for what ever reason.

what ever intel do AMD fanbois come out from the drain holes and make mad comments about what their new oober processor is supposed to do..

dont get me wrong ive sold 20 amds to 1 intel so im not biased

i like amd, i like intel

 

[keithlm]

Enter the "non-biased and neutral" anti-fanboy fanboy. They are the most pathetic fanboys on any forum because they have to put on blinders to actively ignore any valid point that might be said by somebody they are ridiculing.

That particular action requires more bias than anything that can be posted by somebody that fully admits to having a brand preference. (And it puts these clowns on the top of the fanboy hierarchy.)

EDIT: Not to mention that anti-fanboy fanboys are also usually well known fanboys of a particular brand that are now pretending to be neutral for some unexplained reason.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Core 2 DUo was a true dual core. It was Core 2 Quad that they complained about which was two Core 2 Duos stiched together via the FSB.

And AMD already did the MCM approach with Magny-Cours so they already ate their words.

BD on the other hand is a module approach but it means they can cut "modules" when needed but two each time. Each chip will be monolithic but still ..... not sure.

But BD should not be MCM, at least for the 8 "core" version and lower.

There is a WORLD of difference between Amds and Intels MCM. Intel's MCM was just a common package with two routes to the FSB.

AMDs MCM is two chips with a single route to main memory through the HT links.

JF can correct me if I missed something...

Like I said no wonder I banned myself...

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Enter the "non-biased and neutral" anti-fanboy fanboy. They are the most pathetic fanboys on any forum because they have to put on blinders to actively ignore any valid point that might be said by somebody they are ridiculing.

That particular action requires more bias than anything that can be posted by somebody that fully admits to having a brand preference. (And it puts these clowns on the top of the fanboy hierarchy.)

EDIT: Not to mention that anti-fanboy fanboys are also usually well known fanboys of a particular brand that are now pretending to be neutral for some unexplained reason.

And here enters Rush Limbaugh...

Yes... fanbois are oppressed. You poor things have had to endure logic, reason and rationality (as well as reality) thrown into your face anytime you make a ridiculous claim.

Lets all pitty the fanbois.

There is no such thing as an anti-fanboy fanboi. That's like claiming that an Atheist is religious. Some of us just don't like BS and don't like it when people blatantly try (and succeed) at misleading others.

We all know that you're upset and hurt over the years of pwnage at the hands of people such as myself. Maybe if you were actually a respectable individual who didn't try to lie/mislead people I'd let you be... but no. You post your misinformation in thread after thread after thread.

When someone wants to purchase a new system... how about just giving them the facts and letting them make the choice. Try to remain objective for once.f

 

[kg2010]

The 6 core i7s never came down in price (though it would be awesome if 8 core SBs were semi-affordable).

Beside rolling out the 990X, Intel also adjusted the price tags of two of its LGA1366 CPUs, the 3.2 GHz i7-960 and i7-970.

The 960, which is a 45nm part with four cores (8 threads) and 8MB of L3 cache, has went down from $562 to $294, matching the new Core i7-2600, while the 970, with its six cores and 12MB L3 cache, has dropped from $885 to $583.

Source

 

[EXT64]

Note the date of my post - 1 day before that announcement.

 

[kg2010]

Note the date of my post - 1 day before that announcement.

I am well aware, that's why I didn't make any comments or anything. 😉

My post merely shows that Intel does put their processors on sale, the 950 came down in price previously too.

Intel just hasn't been forced to put their stuff on sale due to its competition.

If BD does prove to be a worthy performer, Intel will have to price their processors accordingly, which will be good news for people waiting for Ivy Bridge. ;

 

[EXT64]

Gotcha, and this is one case I am glad to be wrong.

 

[kg2010]

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong.

Btw - 2600k's are back on sale, wonder what that's about:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070

Oh, and my bad, I know this is off topic. Carry on with the Zambezi discussion.