Die-Shot: Next-Gen 8-Core AMD Orochi Bulldozer

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was expecting to see 8 sections on the chip. But by 8 cores, they mean 4 physical "modules", each with symmetric pipelines, or whatever they're calling them. That's really gonna start confusing things. Still, that image is really cool.
 
Sounds good
Looks good
Smells good
Feels good
Tastes good

All we need now is a simple benchmark and a price - here's the thing, if it can beat the 6 core i7-980 but costs less then you have an instant winner.
Price vs performance is King.
Trying to impress with higher clock speeds went out of fashion with P4's at 3.8Ghz.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Sounds goodLooks goodSmells goodFeels goodTastes goodAll we need now is a simple benchmark and a price - here's the thing, if it can beat the 6 core i7-980 but costs less then you have an instant winner.Price vs performance is King.Trying to impress with higher clock speeds went out of fashion with P4's at 3.8Ghz.[/citation]

I want a benchmark too! And I want this to be $250 for the higher-end-ish chip.

And as long as higher clock speed equals performance but not a crazy spike in power usage/heat, then by all means, I'm in. So many new games still prefer high frequency dual core over a lower frequency quad. I don't even have a reason to upgrade from my e8400 @ 3.6. But I will take a quad core 3.6 (or 3+ and OC myself!).
 
[citation][nom]BulkZerker[/nom]Topping out at 3.6 initiaally I think. Still plenty damn fast.[/citation]

...right. Because the only factor that determines performance is clock rate?
 
Competition is great for pricing but this needs to be worthy next generation and not a rehash of the old. Current AMD 6-cores have a hard time keeping up with Intel midrange 4 cores even overclocked, (except for gaming).
 
I was expecting to see 8 sections on the chip. But by 8 cores, they mean 4 physical "modules", each with symmetric pipelines, or whatever they're calling them. That's really gonna start confusing things. Still, that image is really cool
Click to expand...

Um no that is 8 true cores.... you can clearly see 8 cores, with the caches off the the side of each 4 pair
 
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]I was expecting to see 8 sections on the chip. But by 8 cores, they mean 4 physical "modules", each with symmetric pipelines, or whatever they're calling them. That's really gonna start confusing things. Still, that image is really cool.[/citation]

Yep. Its their SMT, or CMT as they call it.

[citation][nom]xaero1ne[/nom]i hope they will be compatible with am3 boards.[/citation]

Nope. From the early reports, Bulldozer will not work in anything but AM3+ (AM3r2 or whatever they are calling it). But AM3 CPUs will work in AM3+/AM3r2
 
It's well known around many other sites that this has been photoshopped by AMD to keep the logic hidden from competitors.

EDIT** Because I got down rated by someone who obviously has no idea about this topic. Here is a very reputable site that is frequented by engineers from AMD and Intel, alike.

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/19576

I was down rated by a person who claims Intel can learn nothing from AMD.
 
Benchmarks are not always the determining factor, pricing and also processor build comes to play, even if it has the best benchmarks since its a new architecture we may never now what defects it may have remember the old Pentium 133
 
Each one of those 4 "cores" you see are actualy a dual integer core module with a single shared FP unit between the two cores. Sun has been doing this for years now with SAPRC CPU's. If executed well this is a great idea for server chips.
 
I really hope this beats the Nehalem chips in performance. I want AMD to be able to catch up with Intel. Without their competition, Intel will stall like they did with the P4, and we won't get any real advancement for a decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom