is it true that AMD fx 8350 is just a 4 cores CPU?

[dafuqawew]

some guys says its just 4 cores .
and each one of them has 2 modules or whatever. i dont know what they are saying but i get their point that theyre saying amd fx 8350 is just 4 cores CPU. my question is ... is that true ?
is amd fx 8350 just 4 cores CPU ? thanks

 

[nikoli707]

no, 8 cores, 8 threads

 

[ryan27968]

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.

 

[cars12345]

The AMD FX-8350 has 4 modules with 2 cores in each module. Each 2 cores in the module will share resources. Yes, there are 8 cores in total, but they are not separate, and are not hyper-threading. This is a good cost saver for AMD.
Intel quad-core CPUs will have 4 modules with a core in each module.

Good read: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discussion_amds_module_architecture_the_fx_8350/

 

[cmi86]

Ill take a sec to answer this thread properly. An FX CPU is made up of "modules" that each consist of 2 integer processing units and one floating point unit. So an 8 "core" FX does indeed have 8 processing cores sharing 4 floating point units. This is by far superior to hyperthreading as these are actual real stand alone processing units unlike hyper threading. 4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.

 

[gopher1369]

some guys says its just 4 cores .
and each one of them has 2 modules or whatever. i dont know what they are saying but i get their point that theyre saying amd fx 8350 is just 4 cores CPU. my question is ... is that true ?
is amd fx 8350 just 4 cores CPU ? thanks

It's, err, well it's kinda both 4 and 8 core. Here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html

 

[jaguarskx]

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.

You are confusing the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Core i7 (all models) CPUs. There are 8 physical cores in the FX-8350. There are basically two versions of the desktop Core i7 CPUs; quad core and the more expensive 6 core versions. Both have Hyper Threading which means each physical core also has a virtual (or logical) core. Thus Core i7 CPUs are either 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 cores and 12 threads.

The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.

 

[Prithvi Boinpally]

Ill take a sec to answer this thread properly. An FX CPU is made up of "modules" that each consist of 2 integer processing units and one floating point unit. So an 8 "core" FX does indeed have 8 processing cores sharing 4 floating point units. This is by far superior to hyperthreading as these are actual real stand alone processing units unlike hyper threading. 4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.

Actually hyper-threading is far better because the 2 "modules" in each AMD FX core are bulldozer cores with an absolutely terrible IPC (instructions per-cycle) that's why Intel's processors outperform AMD in almost all benchmarks and real world tests.

 

[vmN]

No hyper-threading and CMT are not directly competing, as they are in use for different purpose.

Hyperthreading works to increase performance efficiency and increasing throughput.

Where the cluster-architecture(modules) are trying to be space-efficient and tries to cut out many of the redundant parts of a core.

The cluster-architecture are proven to have more performance gain than hyper-threading.

EDIT: I think you got it wrong, it is 2 cores in 1 module.

 

[guitarist367]

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.

AMD dont use "hyperthreading" thats an intel gimmick

 

[Alpha3031]

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.

AMD dont use "hyperthreading" thats an intel gimmick

It's not a "gimmick" if it actually improves perforrmance.

 

[JRFET]

Far from a gimmick it is better actually.....While 8350 can have decent performance...
But look at how bad Bulldozer was/is....

First Gen/Bloomfield totally wipes the floor with them xD

 

[JRFET]

Wait till I get my x5650....then really talk about wiping the floor with that 8350 xD

 

[Alpha3031]

Wait till I get my x5650....then really talk about wiping the floor with that 8350 xD

You mean 5960X?

 

[Slobodan-888]

Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.

 

[vmN]

Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.

CMT is a design to duplicate certain parts of an core. CMT is not two physical cores.
If you look at the dieshot of the FX 8350, you will notice 4 physical cores (one in each corner).
The whole design is to increase the integer throughput with a reasonable floatingpoint performance.

There is nothing fanboyism about discussing these kind of things.

 

[Slobodan-888]

There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.

 

[JRFET]

no....Xeon 6 core Westmere....Oced Slaughter the 8350

or any of old 1366 6 cores will slaughter 8350...

 

[Alpha3031]

Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.

And who are you? A Intel Hater/AMD fanboy?

There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.

Because we all know L2 Cache is shared and not per Core?

 

[DubbleClick]

As far as I know the fx 8xxx series has 4 modules, each of which containing two 128 bit fpu's of which each has 2 integer units which have 2 alus.
Both floating point units will combine to one 256 bit one if heavy single performance is asked.
So yeah, the fx series have 8 cores that are basically the equivalent to 4 intel cores maximum performance wise. Intels hyperthreading is nothing but increasing efficiency and workload on cores.

And amd 'core' is NOT an intel 'core'.

About the amd vs intel debate ongoing:

One module roughly equals one intel core.
Amds bulldozer cores have horrible ips and efficiency values though. Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350.

 

[vmN]

There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.

That is an AMD slide to explain their CMT design. It is easy to misunderstand it.

There are only one physical core in each corner.

 

[vmN]

As far as I know the fx 8xxx series has 4 modules, each of which containing two 128 bit fpu's of which each has 2 integer units which have 2 alus.
Both floating point units will combine to one 256 bit one if heavy single performance is asked.
So yeah, the fx series have 8 cores that are basically the equivalent to 4 intel cores maximum performance wise. Intels hyperthreading is nothing but increasing efficiency and workload on cores.

And amd 'core' is NOT an intel 'core'.

About the amd vs intel debate ongoing:

One module roughly equals one intel core.
Amds bulldozer cores have horrible ips and efficiency values though. Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350.

More or less correct. A piledriver module contains 2x128bit FMAC units and 2xMMX unit within their SIMD cluster (FPU).
A module also contains two ALU cluster (normal core only contain 1 ALU cluster) with 2 ALUs in each.

In cases like heavy AVX instructions, both FMAC units can combine and do a 256 instruction as you also said.

A core is more than just the ALU cluster. The ALU cluster is a part (and very important part) of a core. Take a car, put a engine in the front and in the end, do you know have two cars? No.

 

[DubbleClick]

Didn't know the alus were kept together in a cluster. Nice comparison with the engines in a car, by the way.

 

[ParhamT64FX]

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.

You are confusing the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Core i7 (all models) CPUs. There are 8 physical cores in the FX-8350. There are basically two versions of the desktop Core i7 CPUs; quad core and the more expensive 6 core versions. Both have Hyper Threading which means each physical core also has a virtual (or logical) core. Thus Core i7 CPUs are either 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 cores and 12 threads.

The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.

You are right about Shared FPU but not right about waiting of a core for the other core to use FPU.
AMD FX 8350 s FPU has Two 128 Bit FMAC in each module so each core uses its own 128 Bit FMAC in 128 Bit Computing but some programs require 256 Bit Compatible FPU so if such program is running in your OS then each 2 core will be one and Both Integer ALUs use the Shared 256(128 + 128) bit FMAC.
But somehow the timings and Latencies in FP Engines are higher than Streamroller because of that AMD A10 7850K is 12% better in Single_Threading than FX 8350 but FX 8350 is 70% faster than A10 7850K in Multi_Threading. but I don't suggest A10 7850K because you can have that 12% more Single Threading Performance by using FX 9590 or an OCed 8350.

 

[Dane36]

Reading this from my task manager AMD FX 8350
Cores: 4
logical processors:8

"Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350." Yea sure intel is faster but Ive heard of people overclocking the AMD 8350 to 8.0ghz. The FX 8350 has much much more overclocking potential and can take punishment plus its cheap so can be replaced easily.
-peace