Topic Title: Bulldozer: modules, cores, threads
Topic Summary:
Created On: 06/19/2011 06:28 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06/19/2011 06:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

Ok, let's imagine that you're just a consumer who is reading several Bulldozer's reviews over the Net. Also, let's imagine that Bulldozer will be slower or little faster than Sandy Bridge (Intel Core i3/i5/i7 2xxx), and some reviewers will write this: "The 8-core Bulldozer is slower/little faster than the 4-core Sandy Bridge. What a disappointment!" How do you think, maybe it'd be more fairly to refuse the "cores" term, replacing it by "integer cores" or even "threads"?

 06/19/2011 07:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
kriaNk
Cookie Monster

Posts: 472
Joined: 12/30/2010

I think a high clocked 4-core with 8 threads would be much better (like Intel has done). They need to make sure that the Bulldozers can compete with the Sandy Bridges (terms of speed and power).



-------------------------

Desktop: PSU CM Silent Pro M700 - AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE @ 3.92 GHz - Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 - Corsair XMS3 8 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz - Philips 27" 1080p - Western Digital 500 GB - Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 @ 1000/1425  - SteelSeries USB Soundcard - X360 Controller - Case CM Storm Enforcer - Catalyst 12.11 - W7 x64 SP1

 06/20/2011 02:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

I think that AMD will never agree to name Bulldozer's modules a cores. Somewhere, deep in the Marketing of AMD, some VIP thinks that the more cores, the better. Maybe that person is right, but, as for me, it's like a walking on a thin ice to think that most consumers won't see the difference in the performance between 8-core Bulldozer and 4-core Sandy Bridge.

Of course, it'd be nice if Bulldozer would outperform Sandy Bridge, but what if it doesn't? In the last case many AMD consumers will turn into AMD haters just because AMD has deceived them by stating many cores on a CPU that is slower than its rival's one. So why, AMD, do you want to deceive your consumers? Maybe it'd be more wise to don't do that and tell people the truth? You, AMD, can write this on your Bulldozer CPU's boxes, for example:

4 modules. Every our module is a compute unit that is more powerful than any core of our rivals even with Hyper Threading Technology.
8 threads. Every our thread has a separate integer unit which can provide unparalleled performance in a well-paralleled applications.

 06/20/2011 02:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Vantharas
Polygon Pusher

Posts: 3504
Joined: 03/01/2009

AMD isn't decieveing anyone. They haven't even released the product yet. Its pretty ignorent of you to even remotely suggest how they are going to market there product. Secondly. AMD doesn't even read or monitor this forum. So your post is pretty useless because there not going to read it.



-------------------------

I5 3570K@4~5.0ghz: Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H:Corsair Hydro H110 :16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR-3 1600: XFX Radeon 7950 @ 1100/1575 : Corsair AX 860 PSU: x1 WD Black 1TB HDD's: 90GB Agility 3: 960GB SSD : Creative Labs X-FI:Corsair 500R Arctic White Edition:3 22inch Monitors Eyefinity @ 5294x 1050 : Alienware Tact-X Keyboard: Razer Naga :Corsair Vengence 1500 Headset: Corsair SP2500 Speakers

 06/20/2011 04:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
neo5555
Case Modder

Posts: 929
Joined: 08/13/2008

Originally posted by: a_v_k I think that AMD will never agree to name Bulldozer's modules a cores. Somewhere, deep in the Marketing of AMD, some VIP thinks that the more cores, the better. Maybe that person is right, but, as for me, it's like a walking on a thin ice to think that most consumers won't see the difference in the performance between 8-core Bulldozer and 4-core Sandy Bridge.

 

Of course, it'd be nice if Bulldozer would outperform Sandy Bridge, but what if it doesn't? In the last case many AMD consumers will turn into AMD haters just because AMD has deceived them by stating many cores on a CPU that is slower than its rival's one. So why, AMD, do you want to deceive your consumers? Maybe it'd be more wise to don't do that and tell people the truth? You, AMD, can write this on your Bulldozer CPU's boxes, for example:

 

4 modules. Every our module is a compute unit that is more powerful than any core of our rivals even with Hyper Threading Technology. 8 threads. Every our thread has a separate integer unit which can provide unparalleled performance in a well-paralleled applications.

 

WTF are you on about dude ???  Seriously man, WTF ????



-------------------------

Pics of my rig
i7 4770k, custom water cooling, 8Gig Corsair Dom 2133 9-11-10-27, ASrock Z87 OC Formula, SilverStone ST-1500 PSU, Creative X-Fi Platinum, Logitech Z-5500D , 2xHIS 7970 CF, Asus VW246H Monitor, Win 7 64Bit HP, Corsair 800D Case

 06/20/2011 05:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

Originally posted by: Vantharas AMD isn't decieveing anyone. They haven't even released the product yet. Its pretty ignorent of you to even remotely suggest how they are going to market there product. Secondly. AMD doesn't even read or monitor this forum. So your post is pretty useless because there not going to read it.

That's right, they haven't released the product. Yet. I'm just trying to prevent their marketing fiasco, because people would like to compare "apples to apples." So imagine that some customer would visit some computer store in order to assemble a PC for himself/herself. What (s)he would see at September? There will be "4-core" Core i7 and "8-core" Bulldozer. Imagine that (s)he will choose the Bulldozer just for its doubled cores and, surprize, doubled performance. Then, (s)he is assembling new PC, installs OS, and finally runs some tests. How do you think, what this consumer would feel when (s)he would know that his/her "8-core" Bulldozer would be slower or even just slightly faster than "4-core" Core i7? I'll tell you: (s)he would fill deceived himself/herself by AMD, because (s)he would cry: "WTF? Why my 8-core Bulldozer is slow! I was expected that it would be faster than 4-core Core i7 at least in twice! F#*****!!!"
Is that what you want for AMD? Are you sure that 8-core Bulldozer will be faster than Core i7 2600K? So why AMD just can't be more fair to its customers just by describing its upcoming Bulldozer not in the "8-core" term, but in the "8 integer core" or even "8 threads?"
About AMD ain't read this forum. Frankly, I doubt. Of course, I'm sure that all the VIPs don't read this forum, but I hope that somebody does, because it is an AMD forum .

neo5555: AFAIK, AMD is gonna describe Bulldozer as an 8-core CPU. I think this ain't right because 8-core Bulldozer won't outperform 4-core Sandy Bridge in twice. I suppose that many users will be upset by this fact.

 06/20/2011 06:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
neo5555
Case Modder

Posts: 929
Joined: 08/13/2008

I don't agree .   

Most people won't know the difference because they won't be running another PC just to compare which is faster.
( Most ) People buy a computer and use it. period.

The argument goes both ways...  I am sure some Intel owners in the past have felt ripped off because their "Intel Inside" POS cost so much more than a AMD equivalent but didn't perform that much better ( on average ). Its only when you use a multi threaded app that the Intel have a big lead. Other than that, Intel CPU's are a waste of money. Multi GPU ( 2 or more GPU's ) gaming rigs also benefit from an Intel CPU for the extra grunt needed to feed all GPU's with constant data.

The only suckers are the people that look for the "Intel Inside" sticker, because they have been brained washed by the Intel propaganda machine and don't know a thing about CPU's.



-------------------------

Pics of my rig
i7 4770k, custom water cooling, 8Gig Corsair Dom 2133 9-11-10-27, ASrock Z87 OC Formula, SilverStone ST-1500 PSU, Creative X-Fi Platinum, Logitech Z-5500D , 2xHIS 7970 CF, Asus VW246H Monitor, Win 7 64Bit HP, Corsair 800D Case

 06/20/2011 08:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

Originally posted by: neo5555 I don't agree .   

 

Most people won't know the difference because they won't be running another PC just to compare which is faster. ( Most ) People buy a computer and use it. period.

I think it doesn't matter how exactly people are buying a hardware for themselves. Anyway, a "8-core CPU" sticker looks much better than a "4-core CPU" one, right? So imagine: a happy "8-core CPU" owner runs his favorite application and understands that it works not so fast as (s)he wants. Morethen, then the consumer is browsing the Net for a reviews and sees that his/her "8-core CPU" is slower than a "4-core CPU" of another vendor. The rest you've already read. That's why I want AMD change their mind.
Yes, the "8-core CPU" sticker is a very attractive one, but only in one case - if aforementioned CPU is faster than a "4-core CPU" at least in twice. Otherwise, many people will be upset, and many reviewers will mock at AMD. So why can't AMD be unpretentious company that can pleasantly surprize its customers? All is needed is to rename "cores" into "integer cores" or even better - "threads."

 06/20/2011 09:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Calgar
Nerfed

Posts: 63
Joined: 04/25/2010

You are making a serius miss calculation. AMD referes to it's new CPUs with the 8 core CPU because if it uses the word thread there is a big chance that Intel will sue AMD for stealing it's logo . You know Hyper-Threading.

In addition you, I or everyone haven't use the CPU yet so you can know if the new CPU will suck, be the same, be a bit faster or nuke the Intel. Everyone just speculates.



-------------------------

Thermaltake Level 10GT-ToughPower 1500W-Frio Extreme/Asus Sabertooth 990FX/AMD FX 8150/Asus HD 6990/Kingston Hyper X Predator KHX18C9T2K4/16X /WD VelociRaptor 250GB(Main),x2 320GB(Raid BackUp)Caviar Black,2Tb Caviar Black x2/Creative SB XFi 3D Pro/LG Blu-Ray x2/Windows 7 64bit/Samsung T27A950 x3/Samsung HT-D6750W/Logitech G19,G9x,G13.

 06/20/2011 12:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12192
Joined: 04/17/2008

Then you apparently don't know what HyperThreading actually is. HyperThreading is a bit of logic trickery which allows untapped CPU power to be used to run another thread, which is why you get a range of results, from no benefit to around 50% improvement. AMD, however, is using 8 independent cores which, according to AMD, can operate independently or linked into a 4 core in a sort of parallel processing arrangement.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 06/20/2011 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Onslaught2k3
Member

Posts: 144
Joined: 11/01/2010

I just hope this new processor line isn't just a rebranded 8-core server proc that AMD had already released.  And much is left to be answered if this modules gig will work in games rather than just "thread-intensive" applications.  I guess I bought in to AMD at the wrong time (phenom 1 customer and severely disappointed when could have purchased Q6600 which was a GEM in its time for only $30 more) and my personal expectations weren't met.  However, AMD needs to quit generating hype and excitement over a new architecture and just release it already!  I for one would love to see how their 8-core version works against the i7-2600k...



-------------------------
Intel Core i7 2600K processor @ 4.8Ghz 1.37V
ASUS Maximus 4 Extreme motherboard
8GB G-skill ripjaws memory @ DDR3-1600Mhz (8-8-8-24-1T@1.55V)
G.Skill Phoenix 120GB SSD
ASUS Xonar Essence STX
Sapph. Radeon 4870x2
ASUS VG236 Monitor @ 1080p res @ 120Hz
Seasonic X760 760W 80+ Gold PSU

*facepalm* 300W power supply... best using that to power a TEC to cool my beer!
 06/20/2011 03:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
GavinT
Long Time Member

Posts: 1027
Joined: 07/02/2008

Originally posted by: Calgar You are making a serius miss calculation. AMD referes to it's new CPUs with the 8 core CPU because if it uses the word thread there is a big chance that Intel will sue AMD for stealing it's logo . You know Hyper-Threading.

 

In addition you, I or everyone haven't use the CPU yet so you can know if the new CPU will suck, be the same, be a bit faster or nuke the Intel. Everyone just speculates.

 

The term 'thread' has been around in computing long before Intel coined the term Hyperthreading.

You're right about the speculation though. We won't really know how well Bulldozer performs until we get them in our PC's. And of course AMD don't comment on anything you'll read online.



-------------------------
<span style="color: #ff0000;"><span><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span>Asus Crosshair V Formula, AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE C3, 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHz, 2 x Powercolor HD 6950 2GB in Crossfire, LG CH08LS10 BD ROM Combi Drive, Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1, Corsair Professional Series Gold AX850W PSU, Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Cooler, Dell S2309W 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz
 06/21/2011 07:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

Originally posted by: Calgar You are making a serius miss calculation. AMD referes to it's new CPUs with the 8 core CPU because if it uses the word thread there is a big chance that Intel will sue AMD for stealing it's logo . You know Hyper-Threading.

 

In addition you, I or everyone haven't use the CPU yet so you can know if the new CPU will suck, be the same, be a bit faster or nuke the Intel. Everyone just speculates.

AFAIK, the "thread" word is not a copyright of Intel or any other company, so in this case I can see no problem if AMD would use it describing its new CPUs.
About the Bulldozer's performance: That's right, I don't have this CPU and, therefore, I can't know its performance. But I've read Bulldozer's Optimization Guide and learned that almost all ALU instructions in it can be executed in two units only (EX0 & EX1), whereas two others (AGU0 & AGU1) are just supplemental ones. Do you know what does it mean? IMHO, it means that Bulldozer will have an average IPC in ALU-bounded code, faster than in K10, but slower than in Sandy Bridge.
Yes, a well-parallelized ALU-bounded application will gain some advantage on Bulldozer because of its 8 integer cores, but how much do you know these applications? And what do you say about just 4 (not 8) FPUs? They are very flexible, but are you sure that they can outperform 4 FPUs of Sandy Bridge? Intel has a huge experience in CPU design, so please don't hope that AMD will win in this area just like that. I don't say that it's impossible. I just say that it's very-very hard.
So why to risk on a thin ice? Why name the new CPU a "8-core" just because it has 8 ALUs, but only 4 FPUs? Why don't just say the truth to the customers? Like I said, the truth is: "4 modules, 8 integer cores/threads/ALUs, 4 FPUs."

 06/21/2011 03:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Calgar
Nerfed

Posts: 63
Joined: 04/25/2010

As I said before Intel might sue AMD for stealing it's logo if use the word "Thread" and that goes for the Hyper-Threading. Even if AMD uses the same or similar way to use the techonology for the Hyper-Theading Intel hold's the upper hand. It might accuse AMD for stealing it's techonology.

Even if the word or techology exists for a long time now (The hyper-threading technology found its roots in Digital Equipment Corporation but was brought on the market by Intel-Wikipedia-) Intel has used them (some how, I don't know...) before AMD. There for it is hard for AMD to use same techonology as Intel's.  

What AMD want's to win here is to use different techology but with the same performance as Intel's.



-------------------------

Thermaltake Level 10GT-ToughPower 1500W-Frio Extreme/Asus Sabertooth 990FX/AMD FX 8150/Asus HD 6990/Kingston Hyper X Predator KHX18C9T2K4/16X /WD VelociRaptor 250GB(Main),x2 320GB(Raid BackUp)Caviar Black,2Tb Caviar Black x2/Creative SB XFi 3D Pro/LG Blu-Ray x2/Windows 7 64bit/Samsung T27A950 x3/Samsung HT-D6750W/Logitech G19,G9x,G13.

 06/21/2011 04:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
GavinT
Long Time Member

Posts: 1027
Joined: 07/02/2008

For one, you don't mean logo. you mean trademark. Second, did you not read the posts by other people about the term thread? Intel have trademarked the term Hyper-Threading Technology (HTT), not the term thread. HTT is itself an implementation of simultaneous multithreading technology (SMT) which has been around for decades.



-------------------------
<span style="color: #ff0000;"><span><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span>Asus Crosshair V Formula, AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE C3, 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHz, 2 x Powercolor HD 6950 2GB in Crossfire, LG CH08LS10 BD ROM Combi Drive, Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1, Corsair Professional Series Gold AX850W PSU, Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Cooler, Dell S2309W 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz
 06/21/2011 09:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
KillerHurdz
Overclocker

Posts: 650
Joined: 07/23/2009

AMD has said that a two integer cores on the same module running together on the same task is over 80% efficient.  This, along with TurboCore 2.0, should (at least) allow the upcoming FX chips to stomp current Phenom II CPUs at the same frequency.



-------------------------

Desktop: AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.5GHz, Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870, ASUS M4A78T-E, 8GB Kingston/Mushkin DDR3-1333, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2xSeagate Momentus XT 500GB Hybrid Drive (RAID0), ASUS Xonar Xense, Corsair HX750W, Antec Nine Hundred, Windows 7 Professional x64.

HP Touchsmart TM2: Intel Core i5 430UM, Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM HDD, ATI Radeon HD5450, 8GB Samsung DDR3-1333 (CL9), Windows 7 Professional x64.

 06/21/2011 09:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12192
Joined: 04/17/2008

We won't know for sure until a month or so from now exactly how this will translate into performance gains outside the professional market (e.g. games). 80% sounds very reasonable, as we all know how effective parallel processing is, but I would like to see how much the per-clock (e.g. 1 integer core) has improved over the ancient STARS architecture.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 06/21/2011 09:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
KillerHurdz
Overclocker

Posts: 650
Joined: 07/23/2009

Originally posted by: black_zion but I would like to see how much the per-clock (e.g. 1 integer core) has improved over the ancient STARS architecture.

Ya, hope it's worth the wait.



-------------------------

Desktop: AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.5GHz, Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870, ASUS M4A78T-E, 8GB Kingston/Mushkin DDR3-1333, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2xSeagate Momentus XT 500GB Hybrid Drive (RAID0), ASUS Xonar Xense, Corsair HX750W, Antec Nine Hundred, Windows 7 Professional x64.

HP Touchsmart TM2: Intel Core i5 430UM, Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM HDD, ATI Radeon HD5450, 8GB Samsung DDR3-1333 (CL9), Windows 7 Professional x64.

 06/23/2011 05:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
a_v_k
Member

Posts: 28
Joined: 06/15/2009

Originally posted by: black_zion...but I would like to see how much the per-clock (e.g. 1 integer core) has improved over the ancient STARS architecture.
The K10 microarchitecture has an ability to execute up to three integer instructions per clock, where as the BD microarchitecture - up to four, but only under very rare circumstances. Yes, many integer instructions in the BD uarch are FastPath Single, but, because of only two execution units (EX0 & EX1), one integer BD core will probably have a mediocre performance, according to the AMD document #47414 (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf). What does it mean? It means that the BD uacrh was developed mostly for server, not for desktop applications: many mediocre integer cores and lots of cache (L2 + L3 = 16MB!). And the only way to catch up with Sandy Bridge in desktop is to clock Bulldozer as high as possible. Probably, that's why AMD is waiting for the B2 revision.
Of course you, guys, can wait for a miracle, but are you sure that it will come? And what will happen if it won't? The rest of world will laugh: "Hey, your 8-core Bulldozer is slower than 4-core Intel Sandy Bridge. How was that, AMD?!" Sorry for the recapitulation: AMD can avoid a lots of mockery by only replacing the "8 cores" term with something less conceited: "8 integer cores" or "8 threads."

 06/24/2011 03:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
KillerHurdz
Overclocker

Posts: 650
Joined: 07/23/2009

Originally posted by: a_v_k
Originally posted by: black_zion...but I would like to see how much the per-clock (e.g. 1 integer core) has improved over the ancient STARS architecture.
The K10 microarchitecture has an ability to execute up to three integer instructions per clock, where as the BD microarchitecture - up to four, but only under very rare circumstances. Yes, many integer instructions in the BD uarch are FastPath Single, but, because of only two execution units (EX0 & EX1), one integer BD core will probably have a mediocre performance, according to the AMD document #47414 (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf). What does it mean? It means that the BD uacrh was developed mostly for server, not for desktop applications: many mediocre integer cores and lots of cache (L2 + L3 = 16MB!). And the only way to catch up with Sandy Bridge in desktop is to clock Bulldozer as high as possible. Probably, that's why AMD is waiting for the B2 revision. Of course you, guys, can wait for a miracle, but are you sure that it will come? And what will happen if it won't? The rest of world will laugh: "Hey, your 8-core Bulldozer is slower than 4-core Intel Sandy Bridge. How was that, AMD?!" Sorry for the recapitulation: AMD can avoid a lots of mockery by only replacing the "8 cores" term with something less conceited: "8 integer cores" or "8 threads."

 

TurboCore 2.0 & the ability for an entire module to be able to work on a single task should allow it to (at least) compete with Sandy Bridge (and maybe even Sandy Bridge E).



-------------------------

Desktop: AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.5GHz, Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870, ASUS M4A78T-E, 8GB Kingston/Mushkin DDR3-1333, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2xSeagate Momentus XT 500GB Hybrid Drive (RAID0), ASUS Xonar Xense, Corsair HX750W, Antec Nine Hundred, Windows 7 Professional x64.

HP Touchsmart TM2: Intel Core i5 430UM, Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM HDD, ATI Radeon HD5450, 8GB Samsung DDR3-1333 (CL9), Windows 7 Professional x64.

AMD Support and Game » The Archive » Bulldozer: modules, cores, threads

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics
84131 users are registered to the AMD Support and Game forum.
There are currently 12 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.