Intel/AMD Microarchitecture 2011

[ares1214]

In the server world it will be 16 cores on BD vs. 8 cores on SB. That means in 128-bit workloads we will have 16 FPUs to their 8 FPUs.

We both share to get to AVX. We share 2 FPUs to get a 256-bit AVX execution path. They take 128-bit away from the integer execution path to get to 256-bit.

Based on the fact that most workloads are integer-based, I'd personally rather share FPU resources than take away from my integer execution in order to do 256-bit AVX. But, hey, that is my opinion.

I agree. I also think you have to consider that 8 module 16 core type CPU should also cost less, produce less heat, and use less energy than a traditional 16 core, and probably 12 core, just because of the module system. Am i right JF?

 

[jf-amd]

Yea, power and thermals will be at or below current 12 core products

As to the other stuff, more details around analyst day next week.

 

[ares1214]

Yea, power and thermals will be at or below current 12 core products

As to the other stuff, more details around analyst day next week.

Also, one other question. The current AMD magny cours, say the 12 cores, are clocked at pretty low clocks, 1.9-2.1 GHz. Obviously to keep heat and power in check with so many cores. However, since a 12 core/6 module BD only really has 6-8 cores worth of stuff, does that mean they wont be clocked so low when you reach higher core count?

 

[jf-amd]

First, MC is up to 2.3GHz.

We aren't commenting on clock speeds until launch, but as you can imagine, if we are getting 50% more throughput from 33% more cores, there is a lot that goes into getting that kind of scalability. Typically as both we and our comptitor saw from 4 to 6 cores, 50% more cores brought 33% more performance. With almost double that incremental boost, there has to be some good things in there.

 

[ares1214]

First, MC is up to 2.3GHz.

We aren't commenting on clock speeds until launch, but as you can imagine, if we are getting 50% more throughput from 33% more cores, there is a lot that goes into getting that kind of scalability. Typically as both we and our comptitor saw from 4 to 6 cores, 50% more cores brought 33% more performance. With almost double that incremental boost, there has to be some good things in there.

True, never thought of it like the 33/50 vs 50/33, the fact it being a lot better like that...BTW, i was talking about 12 cores:

The current AMD magny cours, say the 12 cores, are clocked at pretty low clocks, 1.9-2.1 GHz.

And to my knowledge, i havent seen them higher than 2.1 GHz.

 

[warmon6]

The current AMD magny cours, say the 12 cores, are clocked at pretty low clocks, 1.9-2.1 GHz.

And to my knowledge, i havent seen them higher than 2.1 GHz.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/server/processors/6000-series-platform/Pages/6000-series-model-number-methodology.aspx 😗

 

[ares1214]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/server/processors/6000-series-platform/Pages/6000-series-model-number-methodology.aspx 😗

Oh nevermind...newegg

 

[jf-amd]

The reality is that less than 5% of the market actually buys top bin processors (ours and our competitors) so many retailers will not stock them. They are the most expensive and the slowest sellers.

 

[dogman_1234]

^ Why is that?

 

[warmon6]

^ Why is that?

er....... people dont need that kind of speed, dont see a major performance difference between a higher bin and the lower bin, people want to save a few extra $ on GHz and put it towards HDD's/SDD (and raid setups, ect.

So if you dont have these people buying top end cpus for there reasons, why would newegg (or a store like it) carry them? No selling, no point of having them. 😉

 

[dogman_1234]

I see. I thought there was a deeper meaning to it...sorry for the stupid question.

 

[warmon6]

I see. I thought there was a deeper meaning to it...sorry for the stupid question.

It wasn't stupid. If you didn't know what it meant and you didn't ask, then it would be a stupid question. 😉